ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Biomechanical evaluation of different oblique lumbar interbody fusion constructs: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical advances in oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion using different interbody cages.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Impact of endplate-graft geometric matching on cage subsidence following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Article
- Advances in biomechanical modeling of lumbar spine diseases and tumors: gaps, opportunities, and AI integration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- The effect of walking speed on spinal loads and trunk muscle forces using subject-specific musculoskeletal modeling: A database for clinical and modeling applications.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Streamlined and efficient patient-specific modeling for lumbar spine segmentation and finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Biomechanical Assessment: Traditional Bilateral Pedicle Screw System vs. Novel Reverse Transdiscal Screw System for Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Fixation and Cement Augmentation for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases in the Elderly Population: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Quantitative relationships between elastic modulus of rod and biomechanical properties of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFinite element analysis (FEA) was performed to investigate the biomechanical differences between different adjunct fixation methods for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and to further analyze its effect on adjacent segmental degeneration.
methodsWe built a single-segment (Si-segment) finite element model (FEM) for L4-5 and a double-segment (Do-segment) FEM for L3-5. Each complete FEM was supplemented and modified, and both developed two surgical models of OLIF with assisted internal fixation. They were OLIF with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (TINA system) fixation (OLIF + BPS) and OLIF with lateral plate system (OLIF + LPS). The range of motion (ROM) and displacement of the vertebral body, cage stress, adjacent segment disc stress, and spinal ligament tension were recorded for the four models during flexion/extension, right/left bending, and right/left rotation by applying follower load.
resultsFor the BPS and LPS systems in the six postures of flexion, extension, right/left bending, and right/left rotation, the ROM of L4 in the Si-segment FEM were 0.32°/1.83°, 0.33°/1.34°, 0.23°/0.47°, 0.24°/0.45°, 0.33°/0.79°, and 0.34°/0.62°; the ROM of L4 in the Do-segment FEM were 0.39°/2.00°, 0.37°/1.38°, 0.23°/0.47°, 0.21°/0.44°, 0.33°/0.57°, and 0.31°/0.62°, and the ROM of L3 in the Do-segment FEM were 6.03°/7.31°, 2.52°/3.50°, 4.21°/4.38°, 4.21°/4.42°, 2.09°/2.32°, and 2.07°/2.43°. BPS system had less vertebral displacement, less cage maximum stress, and less spinal ligament tension in Si/Do-segment FEM relative to the LPS system. BPS system had a smaller upper adjacent vertebral ROM, greater intervertebral disc stress in terms of left and right bending as well as left and right rotation compared to the LPS system in the L3-4 of the Do-segment FEM. There was little biomechanical difference between the same fixation system in the Si/Do-segment FEM.
conclusionsOur finite element analysis showed that compared to OLIF + LPS, OLIF + BPS (TINA) is more effective in reducing interbody stress and spinal ligament tension, and it better maintains the stability of the target segment and provides a better fusion environment to resist cage subsidence. However, OLIF + BPS (TINA) may be more likely to cause adjacent segment degeneration than OLIF + LPS.
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.