ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Finite element biomechanical analysis of 3D printed intervertebral fusion cage in osteoporotic population.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing lumbar therapy: a biomechanical study of oblique pulling manipulation under different postures.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Effects of Two Types of 3D-Printed Prosthesis Reconstruction After Single-Segmental Total En Bloc Spondylectomy: A Finite Element Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Impact of Titanium Cage Tilt in the Sagittal Plane in Lumbar Total Spondylectomy: a Finite Element Analysis.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Impact of endplate-graft geometric matching on cage subsidence following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Preoperative imaging predictors of subsidence of 3D-printed artificial cervical vertebral bodies: a cohort study of 102 patients with nomogram development and validation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Effect of body mass index and disc degeneration on lumbar biomechanics after unilateral biportal endoscopy-unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a finite element study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- The biomechanical effects of treating double-segment lumbar degenerative diseases with unilateral fixation through interlaminar fenestration interbody fusion surgery: a three-dimensional finite element study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo study the biomechanical characteristics of each tissue structure when using different 3D printing Cage in osteoporotic patients undergoing interbody fusion.
methodsA finite element model of the lumbar spine was reconstructed and validated with regarding a range of motion and intervertebral disc pressure from previous in vitro studies. Cage and pedicle screws were implanted and part of the lamina, spinous process, and facet joints were removed in the L4/5 segment of the validated mode to simulate interbody fusion. A 280 N follower load and 7.5 N·m moment were applied to different postoperative models and intact osteoporotic model to simulate lumbar motion. The biomechanical characteristics of different models were evaluated by calculating and analyzing the range of motion of the fixed and cephalic adjacent segment, the stress of the screw-rod system, the stress at the interface between cage and L5 endplate, and intervertebral disc pressure of the adjacent segment.
resultsAfter rigid fixation, the range of motion of the fixed segment of model A-C decreased significantly, which was much smaller than that of the osteoporotic model. And with the increase of the axial area of the interbody fusion cages, the fixed segment of model A-C tended to be more stable. The range of motion and intradiscal pressure of the spinal models with different interbody fusion cages were higher than those of the complete osteoporosis model, but there was no significant difference between the postoperative models. On the other hand, the L5 upper endplate stress and screw-rod system stress of model A-C show a decreasing trend in different directions of motion. The stress of the endplate is the highest during flexion, which can reach 40.5 MPa (model A). The difference in endplate stress between models A-C was the largest during lateral bending. The endplate stress of models A and B was 150.5% and 140.9% of that of model C, respectively. The stress of the screw-rod system was the highest during lateral bending (model A, 102.0 MPa), which was 108.4%, 102.4%, 110.4%, 114.2% of model B and 158.5%, 110.1%, 115.8%, 125.4% of model C in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation, respectively.
conclusionsFor people with osteoporosis, no matter what type of cage is used, good immediate stability can be achieved after surgery. Larger cage sizes provide better fixation without significantly increasing ROM and IDP in adjacent segments, which may contribute to the development of ASD. In addition, larger cage sizes can disperse endplate stress and reduce stress concentration, which is of positive significance in preventing cage subsidence after operation. The cage and screw rod system establish a stress conduction pathway on the spine, and a larger cage greatly enhances the stress-bearing capacity of the front column, which can better distribute the stress of the posterior spine structure and the stress borne by the posterior screw rod system, reduce the stress concentration phenomenon of the nail rod system, and avoid exceeding the yield strength of the material, resulting in the risk of future instrument failure.
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.