ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Biomechanics of extreme lateral interbody fusion with different internal fixation methods: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical effects of endoscopic ULBD in a reduced‑stiffness lumbar spine model: focus on endplate stress and hypothesis‑generating risk indicators (a finite element analysis).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative biomechanical analysis of pedicle screws versus cortical bone trajectory fixation in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Is Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Rupture During Posterior Corrective Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity a Phenomenon Unique to When Combined with Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion? -Finite Element Analysis with Comparison to When Combined with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Finite element analysis of endoscopic cross-overtop decompression for single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis based on real clinical cases.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Correlation between degeneration of cervical intervertebral disc and degeneration of paravertebral muscle.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Elucidation of the Mechanism of Occasional Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Rupture with Posterior Correction Procedure for Adult Spinal Deformity Using LLIF-Finite Element Analysis of the Impact of the Lordotic Angle of Intervertebral LLIF Cage.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Comparison of Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lateral Fixation in the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Patients with Osteopenia or Osteoporosis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Impact of cage position on biomechanical performance of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Biomechanical characteristics of 2 different posterior fixation methods of bilateral pedicle screws: A finite element analysis.Medicine · 2022Article
- Treatment of lumbar brucella spondylitis with negative pressure wound therapyFrontiers in surgery · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEstablishing a normal L3-5 model and using finite element analysis to explore the biomechanical characteristics of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) with different internal fixation methods.
methodThe L3-5 CT image data of a healthy adult male volunteer were selected to establish a normal lumbar finite element model (M0). The range of motion (ROM) of L3-4 and L4-5, under flexion, extension, left bending, right bending, left rotation, and right rotation, together with L3-4 disc pressure was analyzed. Then the L4-5 intervertebral disc was excised and implanted with a cage, supplemented by different types of internal fixation, including lateral two-hole plate model (M1), lateral four-hole plate model (M2), VerteBRIDGE plating model (M3), lateral pedicle model (M4), posterior unilateral pedicle screw model (M5) and posterior bilateral pedicle screw model (M6). The ROM,the maximum stress value of the cage, and the maximum stress value of the intervertebral disc of L3-4 were analyzed and studied .
resultsThe ROM of L3-4 and L4-L5 segments in the validation model under various motion states was basically consistent with previous reports. The lumbar finite element model was validated effectively. After XLIF-assisted internal fixation, the range of activity in L3-4 segments of each internal fixation model was greater than that of the normal model under various working conditions, among which the M5、M6 model had the larger range of activity in flexion and extension. After the internal fixation of L4-5 segments, the mobility in M1-M6 was significantly reduced under various motion patterns. In terms of flexion and extension, the posterior pedicle fixation model (M5、M6) showed a significant reduction,followed by M2. The maximal von mises cage stress of M1 was obviously greater than that of other models (except the left bending). Compared with M0, the intervertebral disc stress of M1-M6 at L3-4 segments was increased.
conclusionsIt is recommended that the posterior bilateral pedicle screw model is the first choice, followed by the lateral four-hole plate model for fixation during XLIF surgery. However, it is still necessary to be aware of the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in the later stage.
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.