ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Biomechanical Analysis of Double-Level Oblique Lumbar Fusion with Different Types of Fixation: A Finite Element-Based Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does Anteroposterior Cage Position and Screw Orientation Influence Clinical/Radiographic Outcomes and Complications After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Lateral Plate Fixation?Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Article
- For severe and rigid adult idiopathic scoliosis, does an optimal extent of posterior intervertebral release exist? A finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Biomechanical impact of cortical bone vs. traditional pedicle screw trajectories: a finite element study on lumbar spinal instrumentation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of oblique lateral interbody fusion with various fixation methods for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a finite element analysis considering different bone densities.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation and finite element analysis of bone cement-augmented anterolateral screw fixation versus percutaneous bilateral pedicle screw fixation co-applied with oblique lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- An in vitro biomechanical evaluation of integrated lateral plate combined with oblique lateral interbody fusion in different bone conditions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Biomechanical properties analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with transpedicular oblique screw fixation.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Finite element analysis of biomechanical investigation on diverse internal fixation techniques in oblique lumbar interbody fusion.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOne well-liked less invasive procedure is oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). The biomechanical characteristics of double-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion in conjunction with various internal fixations are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to clarify the biomechanical characteristics of double-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion for osteoporosis spines using various internal fixation techniques.
methodsBased on CT scans of healthy male volunteers, a complete finite element model of osteoporosis in L1-S1 was established. After validation, L3-L5 was selected as the surgical segment to construct four surgical models: (a) two stand-alone cages (SA); (b) two cages with unilateral pedicle screws (UPS); (c) two cages with bilateral pedicle screws (BPS); and (d) two cages with bilateral cortical bone trajectory screws (CBT). Segmental range of motion (ROM), cage stress, and internal fixation stress were studied in all surgical models and compared with the intact osteoporosis model.
resultsThe SA model had a minimal reduction in all motions. The CBT model had the most noticeable reduction in flexion and extension activities, while the reduction in the BPS model was slightly less than that in the CBT model but larger than that in the UPS model. The BPS model had the greatest limitation in left-right bending and rotation, which was greater than the UPS and CBT models. CBT had the smallest limitation in left-right rotation. The cage stress of the SA model was the highest. The cage stress in the BPS model was the lowest. Compared with the UPS model, the cage stress in the CBT model was larger in terms of flexion and LB and LR but slightly smaller in terms of RB and RR. In the extension, the cage stress in the CBT model is significantly smaller than in the UPS model. The CBT internal fixation was subjected to the highest stress of all motions. The BPS group had the lowest internal fixation stress in all motions.
conclusionsSupplemental internal fixation can improve segmental stability and lessen cage stress in double-level OLIF surgery. In limiting segmental mobility and lowering the stress of cage and internal fixation, BPS outperformed UPS and CBT.
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.