ArticleHeliyon2025
Biomechanical assessment of unilateral/bilateral lumbar spondylolysis with and without muscle weakness using finite element analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Streamlined and efficient patient-specific modeling for lumbar spine segmentation and finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spondylolysis is commonly linked to low back pain in athletes, and the connection between muscle weakness and spondylolysis is unclear. Therefore, this study examined the biomechanics of spondylolysis and influence of muscle weakness by finite element (FE) analysis. Methods: A patient's L1-S1 lumbosacral unit was scanned by computed tomography, and generated a three-dimensional pathology-free FE model. Unilateral incomplete, unilateral, and bilateral defect models of the L5 isthmus were created. The mobility of the sacrum was limited to 7.5 N m moment, and a 500 N load was applied to the top of the L1 to simulate the human weight. The loading conditions included flexion, extension, bending, and axial torsion. Muscle forces representing the global back muscles and abdominal muscles, follower loads, and body weight were added to the FE model. The force of the global back muscles was decreased to 50 % to simulate back muscle weakness. Findings: The result shows that the L5 vertebral body in unilateral incomplete lumbar spondylolysis exhibited the greatest range of motion during flexion. The L5 vertebral body in unilateral lumbar spondylolysis demonstrated increased mobility during flexion and right torsion. The reduction of muscle strength led to the range of motion of L5 being reduced in all motions, but the maximum principal stress did not change significantly. However, the range of motion and maximum principal stress of L4 increased, especially in the bilateral group. Interpretations: From a biomechanical perspective, this study indicates that unilateral incomplete spondylolysis and unilateral spondylolysis might worsen during different motions. The reduction of muscle strength can cause spondylolysis to spread to adjacent segments and further worsen. A decrease in muscle force led to a decrease in the range of motion in the lumbar spondylolysis defect, but it also led to an increase in the range of motion in the adjacent segments.
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.