ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022
Patient-specific numerical investigation of the correction of cervical kyphotic deformity based on a retrospective clinical case.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Changes in Kyphotic Cervical Spine After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Different Degrees of Correction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomechanical comparison of suspensory traction and axial traction in preoperative correction of cervical kyphosis: a finite element study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Finite element analysis of a new preoperative traction for cervical kyphosis: suspensory traction.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Little research has been reported on evaluating the safety of the fixation construct in cervical kyphosis correction. In this study, we proposed a principal-strain criterion to evaluate the safety of the fixation construct and validated the modeling method against a retrospective case of anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF). From C2 to T2 vertebra bodies, fixation instruments were reconstructed and positioned as per postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. Head weight (HW) and various moments estimated from isometric strength data were imposed onto the C2. The postoperative stability of non-surgical segments, deformations surrounding the screw trajectories, and contact slipping on zygapophysial joints were analyzed. The model was validated against the reality that the patient had a good fusion and deformity correction. The ACDF restricted the range of motions (ROMs) of cervical segments and lent stability to vertebra fusion, no failure was found in the finite element (FE) model of cervical vertebrae. The deformation surrounding the screw trajectories were concentrated to the lateral sides of trajectories, recommending that the shape of the anterior cervical plate conforming to the curvature of the vertebra and screws fully inserted into vertebrae reduced the deformation concentration around the screw trajectories.
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.