ArticleScientific reports2025
Finite element analysis of pedicle screw fixation biomechanics and adjacent segment degeneration in varied bone conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomaterials for intervertebral disc regeneration: Niche reprogramming, precision therapeutics, and structural reconstruction.Bioactive materials · 2027Review
- Biomechanical advances in oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion using different interbody cages.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- The effect of pedicle screw angle on stress distribution in lumbar spine fixation: an optimization approach based on finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Biomechanical optimization of pedicle screw trajectories in osteoporotic lumbar fusion: finite element analysis and validation of robotic-assisted implementation.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Cadmium-induced nucleus pulposus derived mesenchymal stem cells apoptosis via MAPK signaling pathway contributes to IVD degeneration.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2025Article
- Comparative study by FEM of different liners of a transfemoral amputated lower limb.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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pedicle screw fixation (PSF) has been extensively utilized in lumbar fusion surgeries to assist in stabilization. However, inappropriate implantation could accelerate the progression of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Current finite element studies are predominantly confined to single-segment fixation under conditions of normal bone mineral density and mechanical analyses of unidirectional adjacent vertebrae, failing to fully represent the diversity of clinical conditions. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical effects of long-segment unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) and bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) on ASD under normal and osteoporotic bone mineral density conditions. A finite element (FE) comparative study. METHODS Six distinct types of spinal models with L2-L5 fixation were constructed and categorized into two groups according to the different bone mineral density conditions: Group 1 (Model A: bilateral fixation, Model B: left lateral fixation, Model C: right lateral fixation) and Group 2 (Model D: bilateral fixation with osteoporosis, Model E: left lateral fixation with osteoporosis; Model F: right lateral fixation with osteoporosis). Six distinct motions were simulated for each model. These simulations were conducted to analyze the alterations in the range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc pressure (IDP), articular cartilage stress in the adjacent upper and lower vertebrae, and stress experienced by the screw‒rod system. The ROM of the fused segment decreased significantly after internal fixation, and all values were less than 5°, meeting the stability criteria for surgery. Conversely, the adjacent vertebrae exhibited varying degrees of increased ROM during rotation, with the lower adjacent vertebrae in the osteoporotic model being particularly prominent. In addition, BPSF was more likely to cause IDP and articular cartilage stress than UPSF; the IDP in L1/L2 and L5/S1 was significantly greater in BPSF than in UPSF (difference range: 13.65-16.44%). The stress in the L1/L2 and L5/S1 adjacent vertebral articular cartilages was also greater in BPSF than in UPSF (difference range: 20.19-27.07%). The peak stress of the screw‒rod system was 197.88 MPa, which was significantly lower than its yield stress (825-895 MPa). Both UPSF and BPSF can meet the stability criteria necessary for spinal fusion surgery. The UPSF has relatively little biomechanical influence on adjacent segments, reducing the incidence of ASD. For patients requiring PSF, opting for the UPSF method may be more beneficial, irrespective of the bone mineral density. When treating osteoporosis patients, a critical assessment of bone density is needed, and personalized treatment should be adopted to avoid excessive adjacent vertebral activity and the risk of screw-rod breakage. This study provides strong biomechanical support for the clinical selection of PSF types for patients with different bone mineral density conditions.
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.