ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Biomechanical investigation of the hybrid lumbar fixation technique with traditional and cortical bone trajectories in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biomechanical impact of cortical bone vs. traditional pedicle screw trajectories: a finite element study on lumbar spinal instrumentation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the biomechanical performance of the hybrid lumbar fixation technique with the traditional and cortical bone trajectory techniques using the finite element method.
methodsFour adult wet lumbar spine specimens were provided by the Department of Anatomy and Research of Xinjiang Medical University, and four L1-S1 lumbar spine with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) models at L4-L5 segment and four different fixation techniques were established: bilateral traditional trajectory screw fixation (TT-TT), bilateral cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT-CBT), hybrid CBT-TT (CBT screws at L4 and TT screws at L5) and TT-CBT (TT screws at L4 and CBT screws at L5). The range of motion (ROM) of the L4-L5 segment, von Mises stress of cage, internal fixation, and rod were compared in flexion, extension, left and right bending, and left and right rotation.
resultsCompared with the TT-TT group, the TT-CBT group exhibited lower ROM of L4-L5 segment, especially in left-sided bending; the CBT-TT group had the lowest ROM of L4-L5 segment in flexion and extension among the four fixation methods. Compared with the CBT-CBT group, the peak cage stress in the TT-CBT group was reduced by 9.9%, 18.1%, 21.5%, 23.3%, and 26.1% in flexion, left bending, right bending, left rotation, and right rotation conditions, respectively, but not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The peak stress of the internal fixation system in the TT-CBT group was significantly lower than the other three fixation methods in all five conditions except for extension, with a statistically significant difference between the CBT-TT and TT-CBT groups in the left rotation condition (P = 0.017). In addition, compared with the CBT-CBT group, the peak stress of the rod in the CBT-TT group decreased by 34.8%, 32.1%, 28.2%, 29.3%, and 43.0% under the six working conditions of flexion, extension, left bending, left rotation, and right rotation, respectively, but not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
conclusionsCompared with the TT-TT and CBT-CBT fixation methods in TLIF, the hybrid lumbar fixation CBT-TT and TT-CBT techniques increase the biomechanical stability of the internal fixation structure of the lumbar fusion segment to a certain extent and provide a corresponding theoretical basis for further development in the clinic.
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.