ArticleJOR spine2025
Evaluation of a Force-Control Experimental Method to Perform Unconstrained Load-Induced Subsidence Testing of Spinal Interbody Implants.
Article in JOR spine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intervertebral body fusion devices ("interbody cages") used in spinal surgeries are susceptible to axial and/or rotational subsidence into the underlying vertebral bone. Experimental testing standards to examine implant subsidence, such as ASTM F2267, simplify the implant loading conditions and vertebral bone materials for ease of use and repeatability. Yet, the ability to assess clinically relevant risk of rotational subsidence with these methods is limited. Methods: The present work aimed to develop and evaluate a novel force-control (FC) test method for performing unconstrained load-induced implant subsidence into a heterogeneous material interface. The developed method was compared to the ASTM F2267 method, which uses a lubricated ball-and-socket joint, using the AMTI VIVO joint motion simulator to apply unconstrained loading up to 4 kN. Subsidence testing was performed on two different polyurethane (PU) foam densities (rigid 20 and 30 PCF) sandwiched together providing a heterogeneous boundary interface to induce implant rotation into the less dense foam. Results: Axial and rotational subsidence values varied significantly between the two test methods ( Conclusions: This new FC method for unconstrained load-induced subsidence testing demonstrates potential improvements in consideration for rotational implant subsidence and the associated clinical burden in spinal surgery.
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.