ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Motion preservation for hyperextension injuries of the cervical spine-an alternative to spondylodesis? A biomechanical cadaver study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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.
- Role and regulatory mechanism of GPR37 in neurological diseases.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2025Review
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
introductionCurrently, the gold standard for the treatment of AO type B3 cervical spine injuries is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), leading to an iatrogenic spondylodesis of the affected segment and ultimately bearing the risk of long-term morbidity. This study evaluates the biomechanical properties of a combination of a cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) with anterior fiber tape augmentation for the treatment of AO type B3 injuries in comparison to ACDF.
methods14 human cadaveric cervical spine specimens (C5/6) were biomechanically tested under four different conditions: native, after simulation of an AO type B3 injury, after ACDF and CTDR + FiberTape
resultsIn flexion/extension, native testing showed a mean deflection of 11.2° ± 3.3°, the AO type B3 injury of 13.7° ± 2.9°, the ACDF of 6.7° ± 3.8° and the CTDR + tape of 9.3° ± 2.9°. Comparing both the injured specimens to the ACDF group (p < 0.001) and the injured to the tape group (p = 0.005) as well as the native to the ACDF group (p = 0.004), the mean values revealed to be significant. Lateral bending revealed a ROM of 6.8° ± 2.7° in the native, 7.7° ± 2.4° in the injured group, 4.7° ± 2.8° after ACDF, and 5.6° ± 2.4° after CTDR + tape, whereby the injured group values were significantly higher than those after ACDF (p = 0.018). The rotation showed a mean ROM of 5.6° ± 2.8° in the native and 5.8° ± 2.6° in the injured group, 4.0° ± 2.1° after ACDF and 6.3° ± 2.8° after CTDR + tape, without significant differences.
conclusionThe combination of a CTDR + FiberTape proved to stabilize AO type B3 cervical spine injury adequately in the most compromised sagittal plane while maintaining micro-mobility and approaching physiological segment mobility.
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.