ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2025
Ex vivo biomechanical testing of a three-dimensional printed titanium plate and spacer construct and 4.5 mm locking compression plate for ventral cervical fusion of C4-C5 in the horse.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the biomechanical properties of a three-dimensional (3D) printed titanium plate and spacer (3DM) and a 4.5 mm broad locking compression plate (LCP) for intervertebral fusion of C4-C5 in the horse. STUDY
designEx vivo experimental study. ANIMALS: Twenty-four equine cadaveric cervical spines.
methodsTwenty-four cadaver equine cervical spines were randomly assigned to ventral intervertebral fusion with either 3DM (n = 12) or LCP (n = 12) at C4-C5. Four-point bending tests were performed in flexion (3DM n = 6, LCP n = 6) and extension (3DM n = 6, LCP n = 6) in a single cycle to failure. Yield, failure moment, and stiffness in flexion and extension were compared between the 3DM and LCP groups using a mixed effects linear regression model. Failure mode was compared using penalized logistic regression. The significance level was p ≤ .05.
resultsYield, failure moment, and stiffness were similar between LCP and 3DM groups, with no differences in either flexion or extension. In extension, displaced fractures (p = .03) and screw pullout (p = .09) were more common in the LCP group.
conclusionThe 3DM group had similar yield, failure moment, and stiffness to the LCP group. The LCP constructs were more likely to fail by screw pullout or displaced vertebral fracture in extension. Sample size was a major limitation, so smaller differences in the mechanical variables and failure mode would not have been detected. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In a cadaver model, the 3DM construct was less likely to fail by displaced fracture when loaded in extension. This warrants in vivo investigation.
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.