Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35891924›Full record

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.

Kinda Khalaf, Mohammad Nikkhoo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Range of motion of the mid-cervical spine: human versus goat.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kinda KhalafDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, And Health Engineering Innovation Center, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Mohammad NikkhooDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cervical anterior fusionCervical spineDisc arthroplastyPatient-specific modelingPoroelastic finite element analysis

Identifiers

PMID35891924
PMCPMC9293956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.