ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Biomechanical comparison of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion, anterior controllable antedisplacement and fusion, and anterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion in the surgical treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF), Anterior Controllable Antedisplacement and Fusion (ACAF), and Anterior Cervical X-Shape-Corpectomy and Fusion (ACXF) have been shown to achieve similar decompression outcomes in the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. However, the potential biomechanical differences remain unclear. Methods: Finite element models of the cervical spine (C3-C7) were constructed to simulate ACCF, ACAF, and ACXF. Compare the ranges of motion (ROMs), von Mises stresses in the fixation systems and cortical endplates, and adjacent intervertebral disc pressures (IDPs) under loading conditions. Results: Postoperatively, ROMs in the fusion area were significantly restricted, with ACAF exhibiting the most severe, followed by ACCF, while ACXF showed the lightest. Peak stresses in the internal fixation systems were highest in ACCF, particularly within the fusion devices. The cages in ACAF experienced lower stress than those in ACXF, whereas the screws showed the opposite trend. ACCF had the highest cortical endplate stresses, while ACXF had the lowest adjacent IDPs. Conclusion: ACAF and ACXF demonstrate superior biomechanical properties in terms of stability, reduced internal fixation system risk, resistance to subsidence, and lower incidence of adjacent segment disease. As a result, they may serve as viable alternatives to ACCF in certain cases.
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.