ArticlePloS one2020
Biomechanical analysis of a newly developed interspinous process device conjunction with interbody cage based on a finite element model.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advancement in finite element analysis of spinal interbody cages: A review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects of a newly developed interspinous process device (IPD), called TAU. This device was compared with another IPD (SPIRE) and the pedicle screw fixation (PSF) technique at the surgical and adjacent levels of the lumbar spine. MATERIALS AND
methodsA three-dimensional finite element model analysis of the L1-S1 segments was performed to assess the biomechanical effects of the proposed IPD combined with an interbody cage. Three surgical models-two IPD models (TAU and SPIRE) and one PSF model-were developed. The biomechanical effects, such as range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), disc stress, and facet loads during extension were analyzed at surgical (L3-L4) and adjacent levels (L2-L3 and L4-L5). The study analyzed biomechanical parameters assuming that the implants were perfectly fused with the lumbar spine.
resultsThe TAU model resulted in a 45%, 49%, 65%, and 51% decrease in the ROM at the surgical level in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, respectively, when compared to the intact model. Compared to the SPIRE model, TAU demonstrated advantages in stabilizing the surgical level, in all directions. In addition, the TAU model increased IDP at the L2-L3 and L4-L5 levels by 118.0% and 78.5% in flexion, 92.6% and 65.5% in extension, 84.4% and 82.3% in lateral bending, and 125.8% and 218.8% in axial rotation, respectively. Further, the TAU model exhibited less compensation at adjacent levels than the PSF model in terms of ROM, IDP, disc stress, and facet loads, which may lower the incidence of the adjacent segment disease (ASD).
conclusionThe TAU model demonstrated more stabilization at the surgical level than SPIRE but less stabilization than the PSF model. Further, the TAU model demonstrated less compensation at adjacent levels than the PSF model, which may lower the incidence of ASD in the long term. The TAU device can be used as an alternative system for treating degenerative lumbar disease while maintaining the physiological properties of the lumbar spine and minimizing the degeneration of adjacent segments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.