ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Axis screw parallel to the sagittal plane versus traditional pedicle screw in the treatment of atlantoaxial fixation: a finite element study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Biomechanical differences between occipital plate and modified C1 lateral mass screw in the treatment of complex craniocervical malformations: a finite element analysis.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
- Biomechanical evaluation of In-Out-In pedicle screws for atlantoaxial posterior fixation in the presence of high-riding vertebral artery and narrow C2 pedicles: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to conduct a finite element analysis (FEA) to assess the bio-mechanical properties of C2 sagittal-parallel pedicle screw (PPS) in fixation for atlantoaxial instability, thereby providing a theoretical foundation for its clinical application.
methodsA total of 5 intact C1-2 finite element models were established. Based on this, instability models were developed and two different fixation methods were applied for each model: C1 lateral mass screw (LMS) combined with C2 sagittal-parallel pedicle screw (C1LMS + C2PPS), and C1 lateral mass screw combined with C2 traditional pedicle screw (C1LMS + C2PS). Under a physiological load of 40 N, a pure moment of 1.5 Nm was used to simulate movements of the cervical spine in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The von Mises stress of implants and the segment range of motion (ROM) were analyzed and compared statistically.
resultsThe intact model was validated and showed good consistency with other studies in terms of range of motion (ROM). In flexion and extension, the C1LMS + C2PPS resulted in lower segment ROM (12.4% and 6.3% decrease) and stress concentration (15.9% decrease in flexion) compared to C1LMS + C2PS. However, in lateral bending and axial rotation, the C1LMS + C2PPS exhibited higher segment ROM (42.9% and 5.9% increase) and stress concentration (8.7% and 21.4% increase) compared to C1LMS + C2PS.
conclusionBoth methods were safe and stable for the fixation of atlantoaxial instability. Compared to C1LMS + C2PS, the use of C1LMS + C2PPS may provide better stability and a lower risk of implant failure in flexion and extension. Clinically, it is feasible to utilize the C2 sagittal-parallel pedicle screw in fixing atlantoaxial instability.
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.