Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41230201›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025

A novel posterior endoscopic cervical approach for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a finite-element analysis(C2-T1).

Bo Lei, Chaofan Qin, Si Cheng, Qingshuai Yu, Jiming Liu, Xin Wang, Tao Hu, Ke Ma, Yu Chen, Zhengjian Yan

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Bo LeiDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Chaofan QinDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Si ChengDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Qingshuai YuDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jiming LiuChongQing Breif Technology Co., Ltd. No. 1, Chongqing, China.
Xin WangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Tao HuDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Ke MaDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yu ChenDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Zhengjian YanDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to preliminarily demonstrate the safety of using a novel surgical approach and investigate the biomechanical effects of different surgical approaches on the cervical spine. Methods: A finite-element model of an intact C2-T1 cervical spine was established. Different posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) surgical approach models were constructed based on the intact model. The T1 inferior end was fully fixed, and a 100-N compressive load was applied to the odontoid process to simulate the head weight. A 2.0 Nm moment was applied to the odontoid process in three anatomical planes to simulate flexion-extension, lateral bending toward the surgical side, and rotation toward the surgical side. The range of motion (ROM), C6 pedicle stress, C6 facet joint stress, and intervertebral disk stress were calculated under different loading conditions. Results: The finite-element simulations revealed that 1. Conventional PECD resulted in ROM changes within 5%, while the novel approach led to ROM variations depending on the bone tunnel preparation and motion type, with a maximum increase of 7.4%. 2. The novel approach altered C6 pedicle stress, with peak stress reaching 66.6 MPa (5.4 times the normal maximum), whereas conventional PECD had negligible effects on pedicle stress. 3. Conventional l PECD increased facet joint stress by up to 10.2%, whereas the novel approach changed it within 6.6%. 4. Both approaches caused less than a 5% change in intervertebral disk pressure. Conclusion: This study preliminarily demonstrates that the novel surgical approach is safe, with daily activity loads unlikely to cause fractures in the lateral mass or pedicle. Compared to the intact model, neither approach significantly affected the cervical ROM or disk pressure. Additionally, the novel approach had a lesser impact on facet joints, suggesting it may be a potentially advantageous option for PECD. Based on the pedicle stress and ROM changes, preserving the inferomedial quarter of the pedicle is beneficial, and minimizing structural disruption while effectively decompressing the nerve root should be prioritized.

Indexed as

biomechanicsfinite-element analysisposterior endoscopic cervical discectomyradiculopathysafety

Identifiers

PMID41230201
PMCPMC12602385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.