ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Biomechanical analysis of the patient-specific appropriate correction angle for cervical kyphosis in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe correction angle of cervical kyphosis affects both treatment outcomes and the risk of postoperative complications. Incorrect correction can increase pressure on nearby discs, causing segment degeneration, and may overload implants, leading to failure. No clear medical conclusions and applicable methods exist for determining the appropriate spinal correction angle to achieve lasting deformity correction. This paper aimed to prove the existence of a specific appropriate angle from a biomechanical perspective and provide a method for its accurate determination.
methodsThree patients A, B, and C, with severe cervical kyphosis, were selected for Computed Tomography imaging, and each one was used to reconstruct six C1-C7 finite element models with altering correction angles following multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The biomechanical differences were compared under 73.6 N axial load with 1 Nm moments and uniaxial 73.6 N compressive loading. Following the simulation, a weighted evaluation scheme was proposed to determine an appropriate correction angle.
resultsAll patient-specific models displayed consistent biomechanical performance when correction angles varied. Adjacent C2-C3 segments exhibited greater flexion mobility under low correction angles and increased extension under high angles. The moderate correction models showed more uniform Von Mises stress. Quantitative analysis revealed a U-shaped trend in the maximum and average stress levels across intervertebral discs, facet joints, vertebrae, and implants for all three patients. For example, in Patient A, the Von Mises stress of the cage decreased from 5.06 MPa at 40° to 1.50 MPa at 20°, then increased to 7.51 MPa at - 10°. Based on the comprehensive scoring of correction models, the recommended appropriate correction angles for the three patients were as follows: A 10°, B 17°, and C 0°.
conclusionsThe results indicated that moderate correction angles could reduce mechanical stress and lower the risk of postoperative complications. The link between biomechanical data and complications after cervical kyphosis correction supported the existence of an appropriate correction range. It helped to guide the personalized surgical planning from implant selection to the specific intraoperative operations performed by the surgeon and implant design optimization.
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.