ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Biomechanical Analysis of the Tuning Fork Plate Versus Dual Pelvic Screws in a Sacrectomy Model: A Finite Element Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of osteoporosis on spinal biomechanical stability in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a narrative review of finite element analysis and bone mineral density assessment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Effects of lumbosacral and lumbopelvic fixation and fusion on hip joint motor function: a single-center prospective cohort study using gait analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Finite element analysis of short and long posterior spinal instrumentation and fixation for different pathological thoracolumbar vertebral fractures.World neurosurgery: X · 2023Article
- Sacroiliac joint stabilization using implants provide better fixation in females compared to males: a finite element analysis.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 · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designTo evaluate the mechanical effectiveness of "tuning fork" plate fixation system by comparing with dual iliac screw fixation under different spinal motion through finite element analysis (FEA).
objectiveLumbosacral deficiencies occur from birth defects or following destruction by tumors. The objective of this study was to evaluate the mechanical effectiveness of the tuning fork plate compared to dual iliac screw system which is the gold standard fixation in treating lumbosacral deficiencies. This is an innovative fixation device for treating lumbosacral deficiencies.
methodsThe deficiency model was prepared using a previously developed and validated finite element T10-pelvis model. To create the lumbo-sacral deficiency the segments between L3 and sacrum were removed from the model. The model was then instrumented from T10 to L2 segments and the ilium using either the tuning fork plate or a dual iliac screw construct. With the ilium fixed, the T10 vertebrae was subjected to 10 Nm moment and 400 N follower load to simulate spinal motions. Range of motion (ROM) of spine and stresses on the instrumentation were calculated for 2 fixation devices and compared with each other.
resultsThe 2 fixation systems demonstrate a comparable motion reduction in all loading modes. Stress values were higher in the dual iliac screw constructs compared with the tuning fork plate fixation system. The factor of safety of the tuning fork plate device was higher than the dual iliac screw fixation by 50%.
conclusionsBoth fixation devices had similar performance in motion reduction at spine levels. However, based on predicted implant stresses there were less chances of implant failure in the fork plate fixation, compared to the dual iliac screw system.
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.