ArticleJOR spine2024
Static study and numerical simulation of the influence of cement distribution in the upper and lower adjacent vertebrae on sandwich vertebrae in osteoporotic patients: Finite element analysis.
Article in JOR spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of an AI-Integrated System for Automated Fracture Detection and Pedicle Puncture Planning in Lumbar Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures Based on the Nine-Grid Area Division Method.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- A nomogram for predicting fracture of the sandwich vertebrae after percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a multicenter study with 1-year follow-up.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We analyzed the influence of the location of the upper and lower cement on the sandwich vertebrae (SV) by computer finite element analysis. Materials and Methods: A finite element model of the spinal segment of T11-L1 was constructed and 6 mL of cement was built into T11 and L1 simultaneously. According to the various distributions of bone cement at T11 and L1, the following four groups were formed: (i) Group B-B: bilateral bone cement reinforcement in both T11 and L1 vertebral bodies; (ii) Group L-B: left unilateral reinforcement in T11 and bilateral reinforcement in L1; (iii) Group L-R: unilateral cement reinforcement in both T11 and L1 (cross); (iv) Group L-L: unilateral cement reinforcement in both T11 and L1 (ipsilateral side). The maximum von Mises stress (VMS) and maximum displacement of the SV and intervertebral discs were compared and analyzed. Results: The maximum VMS of T12 was in the order of size: group B-B < L-B < L-R < L-L. Group B-B showed the lowest maximum VMS values for T12: 19.13, 18.86, 25.17, 25.01, 19.24, and 20.08 MPa in six directions of load flexion, extension, left and right lateral bending, and left and right rotation, respectively, while group L-L was the largest VMS in each group, with the maximum VMS in six directions of 21.55, 21.54, 30.17, 28.33, 19.88, and 25.27 MPa, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with the uneven distribution of bone cement in the upper and lower adjacent vertebrae (ULAV), the uniform distribution of bone cement in the ULAV reduced and uniformed the stress load on the SV and intervertebral disc. Theoretically, it can lead to the lowest incidence of sandwich vertebral fracture and the slowest rate of intervertebral disc degeneration.
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.