Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32252742›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2020

Adjacent-level biomechanics after single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion with anchored zero-profile spacer versus cage-plate construct: a finite element study.

Xin-Feng Li, Lin-Yu Jin, Chao-Ge Liang, Hong-Ling Yin, Xiao-Xing Song

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for degenerative disc disease: a retrospective, two-center comparative analysis of stand-alone cage versus cage-plate constructs.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Xin-Feng LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Baoshan Branch of Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, No. 1058, Huan Zheng Bei Rd, Shanghai, 200444, P.R. China. lxfrenji@126.com.
Lin-Yu JinDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, 100044, China.
Chao-Ge LiangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanghai Xijiao Orthopaedic Hospital, Shanghai, 200336, China.
Hong-Ling YinSchool of Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, No. 1954, Huashan Rd, Shanghai, 20030, P.R. China. hlyin@sjtu.edu.cn.
Xiao-Xing SongDepartment of Anesthesiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 197 Ruijin Er Lu, Shanghai, 200025, China. littlestar77@126.com.

Funding

Medico-Engineering cooperation Fund of Shanghai Jiao Tong University No. YG2012MS25, No. YG2016MS54National Natural Science Foundation of China 81772292, 81270027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) following ACDF is well established. There is no analytical study related to effects of plate profile on the biomechanics of the adjacent-level after ACDF. This study aimed to test the effects of plate profile on the adjacent-level biomechanics after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

methodsA three-dimensional finite element model (FEM) of an intact C2-T1 segment was built and validated. From this intact model, two instrumentation models were constructed with the anchored zero-profile spacer or the standard plate-interbody spacer after a C5-C6 corpectomy and fusion. Motion patterns, the stresses in the disc, the endplate, and the facet joint at the levels cephalad and caudal to the fusion were assessed.

resultsCompared with the normal condition, the biomechanical responses in the adjacent levels were increased after fusion. Relative to the intact model, the average increase of range of motion (ROM) and stresses in the endplate, the disc, and the facet of the zero-profile spacer fusion model were slightly lower than that of the standard plate-interbody spacer fusion model. The kinematics ROM and stress variations above fusion segment were larger than that below. The biomechanical features of the adjacent segment after fusion were most affected during extension.

conclusionsThe FE analysis indicated that plate profile may have an impact on the biomechanics of the adjacent-level after a single-level ACDF. The impact may be long-term and cumulative. The current findings may help explain the decreasing incidence of ASD complications in the patients using zero-profile spacer compared with the patients using cage and plate construct.

Indexed as

Finite Element AnalysisAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaBone PlatesCervical VertebraeDiskectomyHumansMaleRange of Motion, ArticularSpinal FusionAdjacent segment degenerationAnterior cervical discectomy and fusionCervical spineFinite element analysisPlate profile

Identifiers

PMID32252742
PMCPMC7137311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.