Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38650095›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2024

Finite Element Analysis Comparing the Biomechanical Parameters in Multilevel Posterior Cervical Instrumentation Model Involving Lateral Mass Screw versus Transpedicular Screw Fixation at the C7 Vertebra.

Arvind Gopalrao Kulkarni, Priyambada Kumar, Gautam Manjayya Shetty, Sandipan Roy, Pechimuthu Susai Manickam, Raja Dhason, Aditya Raghavendra Sai Siva Chadalavada, Yogesh Madhavrao Adbalwad

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arvind Gopalrao KulkarniDepartment of Spine Surgery, Mumbai Spine Scoliosis and Disc Replacement Centre, Mumbai, India.
Priyambada KumarDepartment of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
Gautam Manjayya ShettyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Knee & Orthopedic Clinic, Mumbai, India.
Sandipan RoyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, India.
Pechimuthu Susai ManickamDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, India.
Raja DhasonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, India.
Aditya Raghavendra Sai Siva ChadalavadaDepartment of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
Yogesh Madhavrao AdbalwadDepartment of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
Bombay Hospital · INSRM Institute of Science and Technology · INPain Clinic of India · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designBasic research. PURPOSE: This finite element (FE) analysis (FEA) aimed to compare the biomechanical parameters in multilevel posterior cervical fixation with the C7 vertebra instrumented by two techniques: lateral mass screw (LMS) vs. transpedicular screw (TPS). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Very few studies have compared the biomechanics of different multilevel posterior cervical fixation constructs.

methodsFour FE models of multilevel posterior cervical fixation were created and tested by FEA in various permutations and combinations. Generic differences in fixation were determined, and the following parameters were assessed: (1) maximum moment at failure, (2) maximum angulation at failure, (3) maximum stress at failure, (4) point of failure, (5) intervertebral disc stress, and (6) influence of adding a C2 pars screw to the multilevel construct.

resultsThe maximum moment at failure was higher in the LMS fixation group than in the TPS group. The maximum angulation in flexion allowed by LMS was higher than that by TPS. The maximum strain at failure was higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. The maximum stress endured before failure was higher in the TPS group than in the LMS group. Intervertebral stress levels at C6-C7 and C7-T1 intervertebral discs were higher in the LMS group than in the TPS group. For both models where C2 fixation was performed, lower von Mises stress was recorded at the C2-C3 intervertebral disc level.

conclusionsEnding a multilevel posterior cervical fixation construct with TPS fixation rather than LMS fixation at the C7 vertebra provides a stiff and more constrained construct system, with higher stress endurance to compressive force. The constraint and durability of the construct can be further enhanced by adding a C2 pars screw in the fixation system.

Indexed as

Finite element analysisIntervertebral disc stressLateral mass screw fixationPosterior cervical fixationTranspedicular screw fixation

Identifiers

PMID38650095
PMCPMC11065517
OpenAlexW4395046168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.