ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Biomechanical and clinical comparison of different prosthetic in reconstruction following total
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is preoperative cervical range of motion associated with cage subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Effects of Two Types of 3D-Printed Prosthesis Reconstruction After Single-Segmental Total En Bloc Spondylectomy: A Finite Element Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative study on the efficacy of structural support fixation vs. conventional fixation for depressed tibial plateau fractures.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2026Article
- Dual-optimization hypothesis: integrating radiation dosimetry and mechanical reinforcement in radioactive seed implantation for lumbar metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To analyze and compare the biomechanical differences and clinical efficacy of artificial vertebral bodies (AVBs) versus traditional titanium mesh cages (TMCs) reconstruction following total Materials and Methods: Finite Element Analysis: A finite element model of T12-L5 vertebrae from a healthy adult was utilized to construct two reconstruction models following L2 TES: Group A (AVB) and Group B (TMC). Using ANSYS software, flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation loading conditions were simulated to comparatively analyze stress distribution at the prosthesis-endplate interface and biomechanical characteristics of the fixation system; Clinical research: This retrospective study included 20 thoracolumbar tumor patients who underwent posterior TES at our institution from January 2014 to October 2024, divided into AVBs ( Results: Finite element analysis revealed that the TMC model exhibited significant stress concentration phenomena across all motion modes compared to the AVB model. Specifically, the stress on the L1 inferior endplate was 50.09%, 17.48%, 74.07%, 133.83%, and 87.23% higher during extension, left lateral bending, right lateral bending, left axial rotation, and right axial rotation, respectively. The L3 superior endplate demonstrated similar stress patterns but with smaller magnitudes. In both implant models, peak stresses occurred during extension and axial rotation, followed by lateral bending, with minimal stress observed during flexion. For the posterior fixation system, no significant differences in maximum stress were observed between the two prosthetic configurations; Clinically, Group A demonstrated significantly lower implant subsidence rates (10% vs 70%) and superior outcomes in intervertebral height loss (1.33 ± 0.82 mm vs 12.36 ± 7.79 mm) and angular loss ( Conclusion: Following TES, the AVB demonstrated more uniform stress distribution and superior biomechanical performance compared to the TMC. Additionally, the AVB effectively reduced implant subsidence rates, maintained intervertebral height, corrected kyphotic deformities, and exhibited enhanced biomechanical stability and clinical efficacy.
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.