ArticleHeliyon2024
Biomechanical properties analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with transpedicular oblique screw fixation.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Modified Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation System on Chronic Pain and Long-term Prognosis After Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- The roof technique in the treatment of bone tumors of the spine. A ten years' experience.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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: An alternative to conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a PLIF with transpedicular oblique screw fixation system. An assessment of new fixation system's viability and efficacy is conducted through a comparison of its biomechanical properties with those of conventional PLIF. Method: A comprehensive finite element model (FEM) of the lumbar regions L1-L5 was developed and the surgical segment L3-L4 was chosen to comprise the surgical models of both traditional PLIF and new PLIF. In new PLIF model, an analysis was conducted on segmental range of motion (RoM), cage stress, inferior endplates stress, vertebral stress, and internal fixation stress. Three-dimensional printers are utilized to fabricate and assemble the fusion cage and vertebrae, and compression test machines are employed to execute physiological load and extreme load experiments on new PLIF, so as to verify the accuracy of the FEM analysis and the mode of fatigue exhibited by new PLIF. Results: In new PLIF, the maximum stress on the inferior endplates under physiological loads was reduced in comparison to conventional PLIF. While the maximum stress on the cage, vertebral body, and screw increased, it remained within an acceptable range. The experimental data indicates that new fixation system can endure a vertical load exceeding 2800 N and an ultimate bending moment of 77 Nm. Conclusion: The new PLIF exhibits a comparable RoM to its predecessor, simultaneously mitigating inferior endplate stress and accommodating physiological loads, which reduce the amount of surgical incision and fusion fixation instruments. Consequently, it emerges as a sanguine surgical approach to fuse the degenerative lumbar spine.
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.