ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
Biomechanical Evaluation of Spinal Column after Percutaneous Cement Discoplasty: A Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tissue-Level Neck Response in Rotary-Wing Aircrew With Head-Supported Mass Assessed With Finite Element Model.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Characteristics of First Coronal Reverse Vertebrae in Lenke Type V Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Study Using Finite Element Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Efficacy of percutaneous cement discoplasty combined with PVP for the treatment of stage III Kümmell disease with an adjacent disc vacuum sign.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of percutaneous cement discoplasty combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture complicated with lumbar spinal stenosis: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- [Biomechanical evaluation of effects of percutaneous cement discoplasty and percutaneous cement interbody fusion on spinal stability].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
- Biomechanical consequences of cement discoplasty: AnFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Percutaneous vertebral-disc plasty for thoracolumbar very severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A randomized controlled study.Frontiers 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the biomechanical properties of percutaneous cement discoplasty (PCD) in the spinal column between different implant-endplate friction.
methodsA validated L3-Scarumfinite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. In the PCD model, the L4/5 level was modified based on model 1 (M1) and model 2 (M2). In M1, the interaction between bone cement and endplate was defined as face-to-face contact with a friction coefficient of 0.3; in M2, the contact was defined as a Tie constraint. 7.5 N m moments of four physiological motions and axial load of 15, 100 and 400 N preload were imposed at the top of L3. The range of motion (ROM) and interface stress analysis of endplates, annulus fibrosus and bone cement of the operated level were calculated for comparisons among the three models.
resultsThe ROM of M1 and M2 increased when compared with the intact model during flexion (FL) (17.5% vs 10.0%), extension (EX) (8.8% vs -8.8%), left bending (LB) (19.0% vs -17.2%) and left axial rotation (LR) (34.6% vs -3.8%). The stress of annulus fibrosus in M1 and M2 decreased in FL (-48.4% vs -57.5%), EX (-25.7% vs -14.7%), LB (-47.5% vs -52.4%), LR (-61.4% vs -68.7%) and axis loading of 100 N (-41.5% vs -15.3%), and 400 N (-27.9% vs -27.3%). The stress of upper endplate of M1 and M2 increased in FL (24.6% vs 24.7%), LB (82.2% vs 89.5%), LR (119% vs 62.4%) and axis loading of 100 N (64.6% vs 45.5%), and 400 N (58.2% vs 24.3%), but was similar in EX (2.9% vs 0.3%). The stress of lower endplate of M1 and M2 increased in FL (170.9% vs 175.0%), EX (180.8% vs 207.7%), LB (302.6% vs 274.7%), LR (332.4% vs 132.8%) and axis loading of 100 N (350.7% vs 168.6%), and 400 N (165.2% vs 106.7%).
conclusionPercutaneous cement discoplasty procedure could make effect on the mobility or stiffness. The fusion of bone cement and endplate might have more biomechanical advantages, including of the decreasing rate of implant subsidence and dislocation, and the increase spine stability.
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.