ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2022
Biomechanical effect of Coflex and X-STOP spacers on the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- One-hole split endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complications.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Upright MRI Follow-Up for Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization in Low-Grade L4/L5 Spondylolisthesis Suggests Reduced Reoperation Rates Compared With Fusion or Decompression Alone.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Coflex Interspinous Stabilization with Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Average 14-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Five-year radiological outcomes between decompression alone and decompression with an interlaminar device for lumbar spinal stenosis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Perspective: Efficacy and outcomes for different lumbar interspinous devices (ISD) vs. open surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).Surgical neurology international · 2024Review
- Biomechanical characteristics of a novel interspinous distraction fusion device in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Evaluating 5-year outcomes of interlaminar devices as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.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 · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the biomechanical differences between Coflex and X-STOP devices by finite element analysis.
methodsBased on the normal lumbar CT images from a healthy adult volunteer, four finite element models including the healthy lumbar segment model, the mild degenerated lumbar segment model, a Coflex fixed lumbar segment model and X-STOP fixed lumbar segment model were constructed. A simulation analysis under the conditions of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation was performed to compare range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure, the facet joint force, the maximum Von Mises stress and the peak facet contact forces, between Coflex and X-STOP devices.
resultsCompared to the mild degenerated lumbar segment model at surgical level L4-L5, Coflex and X-STOP could reduce ROM in extension by 98.34% and 95.86%, respectively, decrease peak stress of intervertebral discs in extension by 59.4% and 66.17%, respectively, and release peak force of facet joint in extension by 97.09% and 95.42%, respectively. Both devices had no significant impact on adjacent levels. The maximum Von Mises stress in Coflex device was 637.56 Mpa in flexion, 528.86 Mpa in extension, while the maximum Von Mises stress in X-STOP device was 476.65 Mpa at extension position. The peak facet contact forces of Coflex and X-STOP devices appeared in extension and were 19.76 Mpa and 49.28 Mpa, respectively.
conclusionsCoflex and X-STOP devices can effectively decrease the ROM and intradiscal pressure in extension, without affecting the adjacent levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35958508PMC9360861W4291708191What 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.