ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparing zero-profile and conventional cage and plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using finite-element modeling.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical effects of endoscopic ULBD in a reduced‑stiffness lumbar spine model: focus on endplate stress and hypothesis‑generating risk indicators (a finite element analysis).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biomechanical comparison of two-screw and four-screw zero-profile fusion devices in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Flexible Cage System for C5-C6 Fixation: A Finite Element Study Against Conventional ACDF Implants.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effects of supplemental posterior cervical stabilization in one-to three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis of construct length-dependent stress shielding and adjacent segment mechanics.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Long cervical fusions: are multiple segmental plates less likely to fail than a single long plate?Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Is zero-profile fixation safe in consecutive two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with partial uncinate resection? A finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Printed Anterior Cervical Standalone Combined Cage-Plate-300 Consecutive Medical Implants.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
- Is screw position a greater contributor to adjacent segment disease than plate-to-disc distance following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- Biomechanical analysis of a newly designed and 3D printed plate-locking interbody cage: an observational study of finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Biomechanical comparison of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion, anterior controllable antedisplacement and fusion, and anterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion in the surgical treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of the novel assembled internal fixed system in C2-C3 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Biomechanical study of anterior transpedicular root screw intervertebral fusion system of lower cervical spine: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Biomechanical evaluation on a new type of vertebral titanium porous mini-plate and mechanical comparison between cervical open-door laminoplasty and laminectomy: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional cage and plate (CCP) implants usually used in ACDF surgery, do have limitations such as the development of postoperative dysphagia, adjacent segment degeneration, and soft tissue injury. To reduce the risk of these complications, zero-profile stand-alone cage were developed. We used finite-element modeling to compare the total von Mises stress applied to the bone, disc, endplate, cage and screw when using CCP and ZPSC implants. A 3-dimensional FE (Finite element) analysis was performed to investigate the effects of the CCP implant and ZPSC on the C3 ~ T1 vertebrae. We confirmed that the maximum von Mises stress applied with ZPSC implants was more than 2 times greater in the endplate than that applied with CCP implants. The 3D analysis of the ZPSC model von Mises stress measurements of screw shows areas of higher stress in red. Although using ZPSC implants in ACDF reduces CCP implant-related sequalae such as dysphagia, we have shown that greater von Mises stress is applied to the endplate, and screw when using ZPSC implants. This may explain the higher subsidence rate associated with ZPSC implant use in ACDF. When selecting an implant in ACDF, surgeons should consider patient characteristics and the advantages and disadvantages of each implant type.
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.