ArticleJournal of biomechanics2021
Does the neutral zone quantification method matter? Efficacy of evaluating neutral zone during destabilization and restabilization in human spine implant testing.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A novel spine tester TO GO.JOR spine · 2024Article
- Engineered extracellular vesicle-based gene therapy for the treatment of discogenic back pain.Biomaterials · 2024Article
- Comparison of a Novel Posterior Integrated Transfixation Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Approach to the Posterolateral and Lateral Approaches: A Cadaveric Biomechanical and Computational Analysis of the Fixation, Invasiveness, and Fusion Area.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Neutral zone (NZ) is an important biomechanical parameter when evaluating spinal instability following destabilizing and restabilizing events, with particular relevance for implant efficacy testing. It remains unclear what NZ calculation methods are most sensitive at capturing NZ changes across treatment conditions and a direct comparison is needed. The purpose of this study was to determine the most sensitive method at quantifying instability in human spines. Six cadaveric lumbar motion segments were subjected to a repeated measures implant testing schema of four sequential conditions: (1) Intact, (2) injury by herniation, (3) device implantation, (4) long-term cyclic fatigue loading. NZ was expected to increase after destabilization (steps 2 & 4) and decrease after restabilization (step 3). NZ methods compared in this study were: trilinear (TL), double sigmoid (DS), zero load (ZL), stiffness threshold (ST), and extrapolated elastic zone (EEZ). TL, ZL, and EEZ identified statistically significant NZ differences after each condition in flexion/extension and lateral bending. The ZL method also captured differences in axial rotation. All methods identified expected NZ changes after destabilization and restabilization, except DS in axial rotation. The TL, ZL, and EEZ methods were the most sensitive methods with this human cadaveric dataset. Future investigations comparing methods with additional datasets will clarify outcome generalizability and determine what curve profiles are most suitable for DS and ST methods. Understanding the applicability of NZ methods can enhance rigor and reliability of spinal instability measurements when quantifying the efficacy of novel implants and permits insight into clinically relevant biomechanical changes.
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.