ArticleBioMed research international2022
Finite Element Analysis of a Novel Fusion Strategy in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
Article in BioMed research international, 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.
- Article
- Biomechanical response of decompression alone in lower grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis--A finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Development of a Computational Model of the Mechanical Behavior of the L4-L5 Lumbar Spine: Application to Disc Degeneration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the biomechanics of a novel fusion strategy (hybrid internal fixation+horizontal cage position) in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: MIS-TLIF finite element models for three fusion strategies were created based on computed tomography images, namely, Model-A, hybrid internal fixation (ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation)+horizontal cage position; Model-B, bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation+horizontal cage position; and Model-C, BPS fixation+oblique 45° cage position. A preload of 500 N and a moment of 10 Nm were applied to the models to simulate lumbar motion, and the models' range of motion (ROM), peak stress of the internal fixation system, and cage were assessed. Results: The ROM for Models A, B, and C were not different ( Conclusion: Hybrid internal fixation with horizontal single cage implantation can provide the same biomechanical stability as traditional fixation while reducing peak stress on the cage and vertebral endplate.
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.