Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37620961›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023

Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Diseases after Primary Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis.

Wencan Ke, Teng Zhang, Bingjin Wang, Wenbin Hua, Kun Wang, Jason Pui Yin Cheung, Cao Yang

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07312747 (Comparison Between Insertion of Bilateral Straight Cages Versus Unilateral Banana Cage in Lumbar Fusion Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07312747 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Between Insertion of Bilateral Straight Cages Versus Unilateral Banana Cage in Lumbar Fusion Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2026 to 2028Enrolled30ConditionsLumbar Disc HerniationArmscages in lumbar fusion surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Wencan KeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Teng ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Bingjin WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6401-5581
Wenbin HuaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Kun WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Jason Pui Yin CheungDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7052-0875
Cao YangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0058-614X

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81772401National Natural Science Foundation of China 81904020National Natural Science Foundation of China 82072505National Natural Science Foundation of China 82202725
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveAdjacent segment disease (ASD) is a well-known complication after interbody fusion. Revision surgery is necessary for symptomatic ASD to further decompress and fix the affected segment. However, no optimal construct is accepted as a standard in treating ASD. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical effects of different surgical approaches for the treatment of ASD after primary transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

methodsA finite element model of the L1-S1 was conducted based on computed tomography scan images. The primary surgery model was developed with a single-level TLIF at L4-L5 segment. The revision surgical models were developed with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), or TLIF at L3-L4 segment. The range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), and the stress in cages were compared to investigate the biomechanical influences of different surgical approaches.

resultsThe results indicated that all the three surgical approaches can stabilize the spinal segment by reducing the ROM at revision level. The ROM and IDP at adjacent segments of revision model of TLIF was greater than those of other revision models. While revision surgery with ALIF and LLIF had similar effects on the ROM and IDP of adjacent segments. Compared among all the surgical models, cage stress in revision model of TLIF was the maximum in extension and axial rotation.

conclusionThe IDP at adjacent segments and stress in cages of revision model of TLIF was greater than those of ALIF and LLIF. This may be that direct extension of the surgical segment in the same direction results in stress concentration.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraePostoperative ComplicationsSpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisHumansRange of Motion, ArticularReoperationTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdjacent segment degenerationBiomechanicalFinite elementLumbar spineRevision surgery

Identifiers

PMID37620961
PMCPMC10549837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.