ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Case series study and finite element analysis of a new cervicothoracic fixation device.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo introduce a specialized device designed for the fixation of the cervical-thoracic spine and describe its surgical installation, finite element analysis, and clinical outcomes.
methodsA finite element model of the C
resultsUnder the same loading conditions, the maximum stresses on specialized anatomical and biomechanical devices for the fixation of the cervicothoracic segment of the spine during neutral, forwards flexion, backwards extension, left lateral bending, right lateral bending, left rotation, right rotation and other working conditions were 25.097 MPa, 149.480 MPa, 64.150 MPa, 67.804 MPa, 72.754 MPa, and 117.98 MPa, respectively. And, the maximum ROMs were 2.230 mm, 5.585 mm, 4.682 mm, 3.184 mm, 3.061 mm, 4.451 mm, and 4.645 mm. Compared with those in the preoperative period, the patients' CL, OPCL, UCL, LCL, UROM, LROM, VAS score, NDI score, JOA score, intervertebral space height at the injured segment, cervical anterior kyphosis angle, Cobb angle, vertebral displacement, ASIA grade, fracture classification, and vertebral displacement improved (P < 0.05). Sixty-two patients had dysphagia, and 3 patients experienced leakage of cerebrospinal fluid.
conclusionThe design of the new cervicothoracic internal fixation device conforms to the anatomical structure of the cervicothoracic spine, which can provide immediate stability, better screw placement and adequate bone grafting, and reduce the risk of complications. Despite some disadvantages, it is a good device for segmental fixation of the cervical and thoracic spine.
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.