ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Total disc replacement alters the biomechanics of cervical spine based on sagittal cervical alignment: A finite element study.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approach to assess the effect of sagittal cervical alignment on three-dimensional movement of the cervical spine in spondylosis patients.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 · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Changes in Kyphotic Cervical Spine After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Different Degrees of Correction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The correlation between cervical alignment and clinical outcome of total disc replacement (TDR) surgery is arguable. We believe that this conflict exists because the parameters that influence the biomechanics of the cervical spine are not well understood, specifically the effect of TDR on different cervical alignments. Methods: A validated osseo-ligamentous model from C2-C7 was used in this study. The C2-C7 Cobb angle of the base model was modified to represent: lordotic (-10°), straight (0°), and kyphotic (+10°) cervical alignment. The TDR surgery was simulated at the C5-C6 segment. The range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure, annular stresses, and facet loads were computed for all the models. Results: The ROM results demonstrated kyphotic alignment after TDR surgery to be the most mobile when compared to intact base model (41% higher in flexion-extension, 51% higher in lateral bending, and 27% higher in axial rotation) followed by straight and lordotic alignment, respectively. The annular stresses for the kyphotic alignment when compared to intact base model were higher at the index level (33% higher in flexion-extension and 48% higher in lateral bending) compared to other alignments. The lordotic model demonstrated higher facet contact forces at the index level (75% higher in extension than kyphotic alignment, 51% higher in lateral bending than kyphotic alignment, and 78% higher in axial rotation than kyphotic alignment) when compared among the three alignment models. Conclusion: Preoperative cervical alignment should be an integral part of surgical planning for TDR surgery as different cervical alignments may significantly alter the postsurgical outcomes.
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.