ArticleBiomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology2024
A comparison of brain retraction mechanisms using finite element analysis and the effects of regionally heterogeneous material properties.
Article in Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tubular retractors in neuro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Mechanical characterization of human versus porcine brain tissue under large strains.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- Region-dependent mechanical parameters in simulating cerebral atrophy.APL bioengineering · 2026Article
- An Affordable In-house Tubular Retractor for Evacuation of Intracerebral Hematomas: A Case Series and Literature Review.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Finite element (FE) simulations of the brain undergoing neurosurgical procedures present us with the great opportunity to better investigate, understand, and optimize surgical techniques and equipment. FE models provide access to data such as the stress levels within the brain that would otherwise be inaccessible with the current medical technology. Brain retraction is often a dangerous but necessary part of neurosurgery, and current research focuses on minimizing trauma during the procedure. In this work, we present a simulation-based comparison of different types of retraction mechanisms. We focus on traditional spatulas and tubular retractors. Our results show that tubular retractors result in lower average predicted stresses, especially in the subcortical structures and corpus callosum. Additionally, we show that changing the location of retraction can greatly affect the predicted stress results. As the model predictions highly depend on the material model and parameters used for simulations, we also investigate the importance of using region-specific hyperelastic and viscoelastic material parameters when modelling a three-dimensional human brain during retraction. Our investigations demonstrate how FE simulations in neurosurgical techniques can provide insight to surgeons and medical device manufacturers. They emphasize how further work into this direction could greatly improve the management and prevention of injury during surgery. Additionally, we show the importance of modelling the human brain with region-dependent parameters in order to provide useful predictions for neurosurgical procedures.
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.