ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2024
A novel nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 strut for reducing subsidence after one-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a finite-element study.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to introduce a novel nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66(n-HA/PA66)n strut to improve biomechanical performance and reduce subsidence.
methodsOne validated intact and 2 ACCF-simulated C3-C7 cervical spine models were developed (old strut: Group A, new strut: Group B). In the ACCF models, C5 underwent corpectomy and was fixed by an anterior cervical plate. Screw angles were categorized as 1 (0 ) and 2 (45 ) and divided into 4 groups, A1, A2, B1 and B2, for each model. An axial force of 74 N and a moment couple of 1.0 Nm were imposed on the C3 vertebra. The range of motion (ROM) of each segment and the stress distribution on the screw-vertebra interface, strut, and strut-endplate interface were recorded and analysed.
resultsThere was no significant difference in ROM between Group A and Group B during bending, extension and rotation under 74 N axial pressure. The stress concentration on the strut body in Group A was higher than that in Group B. The peak stress values at the screw-vertebral interface in Groups A1 and A2 were higher than those in Groups B1 and B2, except for during extension and lateral bending. Under axial pressure, the peak stress values at the strut body-endplate interface during bending, extension and rotation were lower in the A1 and A2 groups than in the B1 and B2 groups. The Group B model showed much higher graft stress than the Group A model.
conclusionsBased on finite-element analysis, compared with the old strut, the novel strut showed better biomechanical performance at the screw-vertebra interface.
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.