ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Biomechanical studies of different numbers and positions of cage implantation on minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion: A finite element analysis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Letter to Editor Regarding "Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive, Full-Endoscopic, and Biportal Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Network Meta-Analysis" by Cheng et al.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Use of Double Cages for Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Improved Clinical and Radiological Outcomes with Double-Cage Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparative CT-Based Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Dislodgment Effects of Different Cage Arrangements in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Current update and trend of 3D printing in spinal surgery: A bibliometric analysis and review of literature.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Article
- Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Double Cages: Surgical Techniques and Treatment Outcomes.Neurospine · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The position and number of cages in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) are mainly determined by surgeons based on their individual experience. Therefore, it is important to investigate the optimal number and position of cages in MIS-TLIF. Methods: The lumbar model was created based on a 24-year-old volunteer's computed tomography data and then tested using three different cage implantation methods: single transverse cage implantation (model A), single oblique 45° cage implantation (model B), and double vertical cage implantation (model C). A preload of 500 N and a moment of 10 Nm were applied to the models to simulate lumbar motion, and the models' range of motion (ROM), ROM ratio, peak stress of the internal fixation system, and cage were assessed. Results: The ROM ratios of models A, B, and C were significantly reduced by >71% compared with the intact model under all motions. Although there were subtle differences in the ROM ratio for models A, B, and C, the trends were similar. The peak stress of the internal fixation system appeared in model B of 136.05 MPa (right lateral bending), which was 2.07 times that of model A and 1.62 times that of model C under the same condition. Model C had the lowest cage stress, which was superior to that of the single-cage model. Conclusion: In MIS-TLIF, single long-cage transversal implantation is a promising standard implantation method, and double short-cage implantation is recommended for patients with severe osteoporosis.
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.