Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33194021›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2020

Biomechanical evaluation of four different posterior instrumentation techniques for single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.

Hui-Zhi Guo, Yong-Chao Tang, Dan-Qing Guo, De Liang, Shun-Cong Zhang

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of translational research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hui-Zhi GuoThe First Institute of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yong-Chao TangSpine Surgery Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Dan-Qing GuoThe First Institute of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
De LiangSpine Surgery Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shun-Cong ZhangSpine Surgery Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CNGuangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the fixation strength of unilateral cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (UCBT) and UCBT with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation (UCBT-TFS) by repeating the verification of three finite element models. Three healthy female models of the lumbosacral spine were constructed. For each of them, four transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) models with the following instruments were created: bilateral traditional trajectory pedicle screw fixation (TT), bilateral cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT), UCBT, and UCBT-TFS. A 150-N compressive load with 10 N/m moments was applied to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The range of motion (ROM), the stress of the cages, and the stress of the posterior fixations were compared. TT and UCBT-TFS had a similar low ROM compared to the intact models, and CBT showed a higher ROM in lateral bending. UCBT resulted in the highest ROM under all loading conditions, especially in lateral bending (116% and 170% greater than TT in left bending and right bending). UCBT induced a significant increase in the peak stress of cages and instruments, followed by CBT and UCBT-TFS, and the lowest mean values were observed for TT. Among the four different fixation techniques, TT offered the highest fixation strength and lowest implant stress, followed by UCBT-TFS and CBT, while UCBT was the least stable and resulted in increased stress of the screws and cages. UCBT-TFS improved biomechanical stability and appeared to be a less invasive alternative in well-selected patients with single-level TLIF.

Indexed as

biomechanical stabilityCortical bone trajectoryfinite element analysistransforaminal lumbar interbody fusiontranslaminar facet screwunilateral

Identifiers

PMID33194021
PMCPMC7653581
OpenAlexW3104511030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.