ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Impact of cage position on biomechanical performance of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical evaluation of a novel L-shaped side-locking plate combined with OLIF: a finite element analysis considering 3 different bone densities.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Effects of Cage Position in Full-endoscopic Trans-Kambin's Triangle Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Preclinical evaluation of a 3D-printed porous stand-alone interbody cage for cervical fusion in a sheep model.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- The effect of walking speed on spinal loads and trunk muscle forces using subject-specific musculoskeletal modeling: A database for clinical and modeling applications.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Preoperative and Postoperative Segmental and Overall Range of Motion in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion Using HA-Infused PEEK and HA-Treated Titanium Alloy Interbody Cages.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- A multidimensional in-depth analysis of postoperative pain after PLIF in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative Biomechanical Stability of the Fixation of Different Miniplates in Restorative Laminoplasty after Laminectomy: A Finite Element Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- The effects of cage on endplate collapse after stand-alone OLIF: based on finite element analysis andFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Biomechanical differences between two different shapes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion cages on whether to add posterior internal fixation system: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the biomechanical performance of various cage positions in stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion(SA LLIF).
methodsAn intact finite element model of the L3-L5 was reconstructed. The model was verified and analyzed. Through changing the position of the cage, SA LLIF was established in four directions: anterior placement(AP), middle placement(MP), posterior placement(PP), oblique placement(OP). A 400 N vertical axial pre-load was imposed on the superior surface of L3 and a 10 N/m moment was applied on the L3 superior surface along the radial direction to simulate movements of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Various biomechanical parameters were evaluated for intact and implanted models in all loading conditions, including the range of motion (ROM) and maximum stress.
resultsIn the SA LLIF models, the ROM of L4-5 was reduced by 84.21-89.03% in flexion, 72.64-82.26% in extension, 92.5-95.85% in right and left lateral bending, and 87.22-92.77% in right and left axial rotation, respectively. Meanwhile, ROM of L3-4 was mildly increased by an average of 9.6% in all motion directions. Almost all stress peaks were increased after SA LLIF, including adjacent disc, facet joints, and endplates. MP had lower stress peaks of cage and endplates in most motion modes. In terms of the stress on facet joints and disc of the cephalad segment, MP had the smallest increment.
conclusionIn our study, SA LLIF risked accelerating the adjacent segment degeneration. The cage position had an influence on the distribution of endplate stress and the magnitude of facet joint stress. Compared with other positions, MP had the slightest effect on the stress in the adjacent facet joints. Meanwhile, MP seems to play an important role in reducing the risk of cage subsidence.
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.