Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36971956›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2023

Biomechanical analysis of Instrumented decompression and Interbody fusion procedures in Lumbar spine: a finite element analysis study.

Shivam Saini, Nagaraj Manju Moger, Manish Kumar, Subrato Sarkar, Samarth Mittal, Syed Ifthekar, Kaustubh Ahuja, Indra Vir Singh, Pankaj Kandwal

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Shivam SainiDepartment of Precision and Microsystems Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2628 CD, The Netherlands.
Nagaraj Manju MogerDepartment of Orthopaedics, AIIMS Rishikesh, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India.
Manish KumarPolytechnic Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Udine (UNIUD), Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 33100, Udine, Italy.
Subrato SarkarDepartment of Mechanical Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180, USA.
Samarth MittalDepartment of Orthopaedics, AIIMS Rishikesh, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India.
Syed IfthekarDepartment of Orthopaedics, AIIMS Rishikesh, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India.
Kaustubh AhujaDepartment of Orthopaedics, AIIMS Rishikesh, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India.
Indra Vir SinghDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Roorkee-247667, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Pankaj KandwalDepartment of Orthopaedics, AIIMS Rishikesh, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India. pankaj.orth@aiimsrishikesh.edu.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8801-6909
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Raipur · INDelft University of Technology · NLIndian Institute of Technology Roorkee · INRensselaer Polytechnic Institute · USUniversity of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interbody fusions have become increasingly popular to achieve good fusion rates. Also, unilateral instrumentation is favored to minimize soft tissue injury with limited hardware. Limited finite element studies are available in the literature to validate these clinical implications. A three-dimensional, non-linear ligamentous attachment finite element model of L3-L4 was created and validated. The intact L3-L4 model was modified to simulate procedures like laminectomy with bilateral pedicle screw Instrumentation, transforaminal, and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF and PLIF, respectively) with unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation. Compared to instrumented laminectomy, interbody procedures showed a considerable reduction in range of motion (RoM) in extension and torsion (6% and 12% difference, respectively). Both TLIF and PLIF showed comparable RoM in all movements with < 5% difference in reduction of RoM between them. Bilateral instrumentation showed a more significant decrease in RoM (> 5% difference) in the entire range of motion except in torsion when compared to unilateral instrumentation. The maximum difference in reduction in RoM was noted in lateral bending (24% and 26% for PLIF and TLIF, respectively), while the least difference in Left torsion (0.6% and 3.6% for PLIF and TLIF, respectively) in comparing bilateral with unilateral instrumentation. Interbody fusion procedures were found to be biomechanically more stable in extension and torsion than the instrumented laminectomy. Single-level TLIF and PLIF achieved a similar reduction in RoM with a < 5% difference. Bilateral screw fixation proved biomechanically superior to unilateral fixation in the entire range of motion except in torsion.

Indexed as

Pedicle ScrewsSpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaDecompressionFinite Element AnalysisLumbar VertebraeRange of Motion, ArticularFinite element methodLumbar spinePedicle screwsPosterior lumbar interbody fusionSpine biomechanicsTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID36971956
OpenAlexW4361010977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.