ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Evaluation of the effect of cervical spine bone distribution on fixation in ankylosing spondylitis.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The distribution of cervical bones in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) differs from that of the normal cervical spine. Traditional simulation methods often yield inaccurate results in finite element analysis. The current study aimed to construct ankylosing spondylitis cervical spine fracture (ASCF) models based on Hounsfield Unit (HU) values to analyze the effects of different fixation approaches. Methods: Quantitative HU measurements of cervical vertebrae and lateral masses were obtained from CT scans of 20 patients with AS. A finite element model of ASCF was constructed based on HU values and was compared with a traditional ASCF model from multiple perspectives. Additionally, three ASCF models were used to compare the effects of various fixation approaches. A meta-analysis of screw loosening rates was conducted to further validate the efficacy of the models. Results: The HU value of the cervical lateral mass in AS is higher than the corresponding mass in the vertebral body. Finite element analysis results indicated that the anterior approach is less stable compared to other approaches, as evidenced by the maximum stress (MS) value of the screw and the maximum displacement (MD) of the entire model. These findings were corroborated by the meta-analysis of screw loosening rates in ASCF. Conclusion: ASCF exhibits an uneven distribution of cervical bone, with more severe osteoporosis in the anterior cervical spine. Consequently, simple anterior approaches to fixation may lead to screw loosening in ASCF.
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.