ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2022
Comparative biomechanical analyses of lower cervical spine post anterior fusion versus intervertebral disc arthroplasty: A geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element investigation.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sortilin is Associated with PGRN-Mediated Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Activation of Microglia in a Rat Model of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.Neuromolecular medicine · 2026Article
- A Review of Motion-Preserving Cervical Spinal Implants and Fusion Constructs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A comparison of conventional intervention and home-based approach with head-mounted device for cervical spondylotic myelopathy after surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cervical Disc Arthroplasties Fail to Maintain Physiological Kinematics Under Lateral Eccentric Loads.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in predicting postoperative heterotopic ossification following anterior cervical disc replacement.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 · 2024Article
- A comparative study of the effect of facet tropism on the index-level kinematics and biomechanics after artificial cervical disc replacement (ACDR) with Prestige LP, Prodisc-C vivo, and Mobi-C: a finite element study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Biomechanical Analysis of Hybrid Artificial Discs or Zero-Profile Devices for Treating 1-Level Adjacent Segment Degeneration in ACDF Revision Surgery.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Comparison of short-segment and long-segment fixation in treatment of degenerative scoliosis and analysis of factors associated with adjacent spondylolisthesis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024Article
- Range of motion of the mid-cervical spine: human versus goat.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- The influence of over-distraction on biomechanical response of cervical spine post anterior interbody fusion: a comprehensive finite element study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Endoplasmic reticulum stress associates with the development of intervertebral disc degeneration.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Objective: The optimal surgical technique for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) towards decreasing the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD) remains elusive. This study aimed to comparatively investigate the biomechanics of the lower cervical spine following fusion (ACDF) and artificial disc arthroplasty (Bryan® and Prestige LP®) using a validated geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element modeling (FEM) approach. Methods: Ten subject-specific pre-operative models were developed and validated based on a FEM approach. Poroelastic models were then constructed using post-operation images for three different treatment scenarios: ACDF; Prestige LP® and Bryan® artificial discs at the C5-C6 level. The biomechanical responses at both surgical and adjacent spinal levels were studied subject to static and cyclic loading. Results: Postoperatively, greater range of motion (ROM), higher annulus fibrosus stress and strain values, and increased disc height and fluid loss at the adjacent levels were detected post ACDF, as compared with pre-op as well as artificial disc arthroplasty. The facet joint forces were larger for the Prestige LP® disc, particularly during extension. The lowest values in disc height and fluid exchange were observed in the Bryan® artificial disc arthroplasty models. Conclusion: Biomechanical analyses revealed that ACDF poses the highest potential risk for adjacent disc degeneration. The artificial discs investigated here (Prestige LP® and Bryan®) not only preserved motion at the instrumented level, but also sustained the pre-op ROM and decreased the intradiscal pressure (IDP) and facet joint forces (FJFs) at adjacent levels, particularly during flexion/extension. The Bryan® artificial disc demonstrated the most efficacy in maintaining the natural poroelastic characteristics of adjacent discs. The translational potential of this article: This study provided a technique for clinicians to use quantitative data towards subject-specific evaluation to comparatively evaluate the impact of ACDF and disc arthroplasty using two types of artificial discs on the biomechanics of the cervical spine. It confirms differences in the poroelastic characteristics of adjacent discs for different fixation techniques, and reveals the advantage of artificial discs with a flexible core for decreasing the risk of ASD.
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.