ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Biomechanical comparison of suspensory traction and axial traction in preoperative correction of cervical kyphosis: a finite element study.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the biomechanical characteristics of axial traction and suspensory traction in the process of preoperative correction of cervical kyphosis. Methods: An intact three-dimensional finite element digital model of C2-T2 with cervical kyphosis was established. The head gravity and moment were applied to the finite element model to simulate the force of skull traction and the force of suspensory traction. The changes of cervical kyphotic angle, the length of cervical spinal canal and the stress distribution of each vertebral body were analyzed under two traction modes. Results: The kyphotic angles of the kyphotic segments were reduced by both tractions. The C2-C5 kyphotic angle was 41° before traction, and decreased to 32° and 26° after axial traction and suspensory traction, respectively. The length of C3-C7 cervical spinal canal was 61.3 mm before traction. After axial traction, the length of C3-C7 cervical spinal canal increased to 61.8 mm; after suspensory traction, it decreased to 59. 6 mm. The high stress area of each vertebral body was located in the anterior longitudinal ligament attachment area of the vertebral body during both two kinds of traction. The maximum Mises stress of C2-C7 vertebral body in suspensory traction is generally small relative to axial traction. Conclusion: Compared with axial traction, suspensory traction has better kyphotic corrective effect, while reduces the length of the cervical spinal canal and the stress on the cervical vertebral body, which decreases the possibility of nerve damage and iatrogenic fracture during traction from a biomechanical point of view.
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.