ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Interspinous Process Device: In Vitro Flexibility Assessment and Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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 evaluation of a novel cervical interfacet self-locking cage versus ACDF: a goat cadaveric study combined with human CT-based finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional gait analysis in spinal disorders: biomechanical insights and clinical applications for diagnosis, surgical planning, and rehabilitation.Frontiers in neurology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The interspinous process device (IPD) has emerged as a viable alternative for managing lumbar degenerative pathologies. Nevertheless, limited research exists regarding mechanical failure modes including device failure and spinous process fracture. This study developed a novel IPD (IPD-NEW) and systematically evaluated its biomechanical characteristics through finite element (FE) analysis and in vitro cadaveric biomechanical testing. Six human L1-L5 lumbar specimens were subjected to mechanical testing under four experimental conditions: (1) Intact spine (control); (2) L3-L4 implanted with IPD-NEW; (3) L3-L4 implanted with Wallis device; (4) L3-L4 implanted with Coflex device. Segmental range of motion (ROM) was quantified across all test conditions. A validated L1-L5 finite element model was subsequently employed to assess biomechanical responses under both static and vertical vibration loading regimes. Comparative analysis revealed that IPD-NEW demonstrated comparable segmental ROM to the Wallis device while exhibiting lower rigidity than the Coflex implant. The novel design effectively preserved physiological spinal mobility while enhancing load distribution capacity. IPD-NEW demonstrated notable reductions in facet joint forces, device stress concentrations, and spinous process loading compared to conventional implants, particularly under vibrational loading conditions. These findings suggest that IPD-NEW may mitigate risks associated with facetogenic pain, device failure, and spinous process fracture through optimized load redistribution.
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.