ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Biomechanical evaluation of four internal fixation systems for two-segment anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is a key surgical intervention for cervical spine pathologies, but multi-segment ACCF is associated with high risks of instability, implant failure, and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Conventional internal fixation system, vertebral body screw (VBS), titanium plate (TP), combine with titanium mesh cage (TMC) have limitations such as insufficient three-column fixation. Anterior transpedicular screws (ATPS) and 3D-printed artificial vertebral bodies (3D-AVB) have shown potential to improve biomechanical performance, but direct biomechanical comparisons of different internal fixation system systems in two-segment ACCF remain lacking. Methods: A finite element (FE) model of the C1-T1 cervical spine was constructed and validated. Four two-segment ACCF (C5-C6 corpectomy) models with different internal fixation systems were established: (1) Group 1: four VBS with TP and TMC; (2) Group 2: four oblique VBS with 3D-AVB; (3) Group 3: two superior VBS and two inferior ATPS with 3D-AVB; (4) Group 4: four ATPS with 3D-AVB. A 73.6 N axial load and 1.0 Nm moment were applied. Outcome measures included range of motion (ROM) of surgical (C4-C7) and adjacent segments, maximum von Mises stress of implants, bone-implant interfaces, and adjacent intervertebral discs. Results: All four groups reduced C4-C7 ROM, with Group 4 showing the most significant reduction (≈98% for flexion/extension), followed by Group 3, Group 2, and Group 1 (68.5% flexion reduction). Group 4 exhibited slightly increased adjacent segment ROM (54.8% increase in C3-C4 extension). Implant stress was lowest in Group 4 (54.8 MPa) and highest in Group 2 (255.8 MPa). Group 4 also had the lowest bone-implant interface stress at C4 and T1, whereas Group 2 had the highest. Adjacent disc stress in Group 4 was comparable to the intact model, while other groups showed increases (46.9% in Group 1). Conclusion: The Group 4 (4 ATPS + 3D-AVB system) is preferred for two-segment ACCF, as it provides superior surgical segment stability, reduces stress on implants, bone-implant interfaces, and adjacent discs. For cases where Group 4 is inapplicable, alternatives should be prioritized as follows: Group 3 (2 VBS +2 ATPS + 3D-AVB), Group 2 (4 oblique VBS + 3D-AVB), and Group 1 (4 VBS + TP + TMC). Long-term efficacy of these systems requires verification via future clinical trials.
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.