ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Finite element analysis comparing a PEEK posterior fixation device versus pedicle screws for lumbar fusion.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of lumbar decompression and fusion with a novel metal-free cortico-pedicular fixation device: A comparative cohort study.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- [Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026Article
- The impact of osteoporosis on spinal biomechanical stability in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a narrative review of finite element analysis and bone mineral density assessment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel Facet Joint Fusion Fixation Device With Conventional Pedicle Screw Fixation Device: A Finite Element Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Finite Element Analysis of a 3D-Printed Acetabular Prosthesis for an Acetabular Defect According to the Paprosky Classification.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Apical stress redistribution during anterior vertebral body tethering for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a finite element analysis of a novel surgical technique.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- A Finite Element Study of Simulated Fusion in an L4-L5 Model: Influence of the Combination of Materials in the Screw-and-Rod Fixation System on Reproducing Natural Bone Behavior.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification of finite element analysis results for pedicle screw assemblies under ASTM F1717 flexion and extension testing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Finite element analysis and its application in Orthopaedics: A narrative review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPedicle screw loosening and breakage are common causes of revision surgery after lumbar fusion. Thus, there remains a continued need for supplemental fixation options that offer immediate stability without the associated failure modes. This finite element analysis compared the biomechanical properties of a novel cortico-pedicular posterior fixation (CPPF) device with those of a conventional pedicle screw system (PSS).
methodsThe CPPF device is a polyetheretherketone strap providing circumferential cortical fixation for lumbar fusion procedures via an arcuate tunnel. Using a validated finite element model, we compared the stability and load transfer characteristics of CPPF to intact conditions under a 415 N follower load and PSS conditions under a 222 N preload. Depending on the instrumented levels, two different interbody devices were used: a lateral lumbar interbody device at L4-5 or an anterior lumbar interbody device at L5-S1. Primary outcomes included range of motion of the functional spinal units and anterior load transfer, defined as the total load through the disk and interbody device after functional motion and follower load application.
resultsAcross all combinations of interbody devices and lumbar levels evaluated, CPPF consistently demonstrated significant reductions in flexion (ranging from 90 to 98%), extension (ranging from 88 to 94%), lateral bending (ranging from 75 to 80%), and torsion (ranging from 77 to 86%) compared to the intact spine. Stability provided by the CPPF device was comparable to PSS in all simulations (range of motion within 0.5 degrees for flexion-extension, 0.6 degrees for lateral bending, and 0.5 degrees for torsion). The total anterior load transfer was higher with CPPF versus PSS, with differences across all tested conditions ranging from 128 to 258 N during flexion, 89-323 N during extension, 135-377 N during lateral bending, 95-258 N during torsion, and 82-250 N during standing.
conclusionUnder the modeled conditions, cortico-pedicular fixation for supplementing anterior or lateral interbody devices between L4 and S1 resulted in comparable stability based on range of motion measures and less anterior column stress shielding based on total anterior load transfer measures compared to PSS. Clinical studies are needed to confirm these finite element analysis findings.
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.