ArticlePloS one2025
Biomechanical performance of a novel zero-profile interbody cage: A cadaveric study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- [Effectiveness comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile three-dimensional-printed interbody fusion Cage and titanium plate fusion Cage].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zero-profile cage (ZPC) products have been widely used in anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) surgery. To develop a ZPC that meets the biomechanical requirements of the Chinese population, we designed a novel zero-profile cage (NZ) by analyzing the critical anatomical parameters of the cervical spine in healthy Chinese people. This study aims to investigate and assess whether the biomechanical properties of the newly designed NZ could satisfy the criteria for clinical application. The biomechanical properties of the NZ were evaluated by being implanted into cervical cadaveric specimens, measuring and analyzing the range of motion (ROM) of surgical segments. The experimental group in this study consisted of the NZ. As the control group, the gold standard product combination of ACDF surgery, anterior fixation plate combined with cage (P + C), and the FDA-approved ZPC product (Zero-P) were utilized. The experiment utilized six cadaveric specimens of human cervical vertebrae subjected to identical testing conditions. Following the completion of the test under intact conditions, fusion products were implanted into each specimen in segment C4-C5 in the following order: Zero-P, NZ, P + C. Biomechanical results revealed that the ROM of the surgical segment had decreased significantly under six basic working conditions following NZ implantation. Statistically significant differences were observed in the left bending (LB), right bending (RB), and left rotation (LR) conditions when compared to the intact conditions. The remaining working conditions did not exhibit a significant difference. However, the observed decreasing trend was consistent with previously documented research. In terms of the ROM of surgical segments, there was no statistically significant difference between the NZ group, the Zero-P group, and the P + C group. The biomechanical properties of the newly designed NZ in this study were superior, comparable to the fusion effect observed in conventional products of the Zero-P group and the P + C group. Furthermore, the biomechanical properties exhibited further improvement when subjected to LB and RB conditions. In the future, the newly designed NZ has great potential as a competitive choice for clinical applications.
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.