ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Finite Element Analysis of Biomechanical Assessment: Traditional Bilateral Pedicle Screw System vs. Novel Reverse Transdiscal Screw System for Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical advantage of anterior over central cage placement in XLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Recent Findings and Developments in Spine Biomechanics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomechanical finite element methods study of a novel internal fixation system for lumbar spondylolysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
The traditional bilateral pedicle screw system has been used for the treatment of various lumbar spine conditions including advanced degenerative disc disease. However, there is an ongoing need to develop more effective and less invasive techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the traditional bilateral pedicle screw system (BPSS) with the novel reverse transdiscal screw system (RTSS) for lumbar disc degenerative disease. A 3D solid lumbar L1-L5 spine model was developed and validated based on a human CT scan. Fusions were simulated at L3-L4. The first scenario comprised a transforaminal lumbar interbody cage in combination with the bilateral pedicle screw-rod system (BPSS-TLIF). In the second scenario, the same TLIF cage was combined with reverse L3-L4 transdiscal screws (RTSS-TLIF). Testing parameters included range of motion (ROM) in three orthogonal axes, hardware (cage and screw) stress, and shear load resistance. The ROM of the surgical model was reduced by approximately 90% compared to the intact model at the fused level. The RTSS model demonstrated less ROM compared to the BPSS model at the fused level for all loading conditions. Overall, the RTSS model exhibited lower stress on both screws and cage compared with the BPSS model in all biomechanical testing conditions. The RTSS model also exhibited higher anterior and posterior shear load resistance than the BPSS model. In conclusion, the RTSS model proved superior to the BPSS model in all respects. These findings indicate that the RTSS could serve as a feasible option for patients undergoing lumbar fusion, especially for adjacent segment disease, potentially enhancing surgical outcomes for disc degeneration.
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.