ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Biomechanical evaluation of a novel correction technique for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 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
Purpose: To introduce a novel surgical technique, the Simultaneous Double-Rod Reverse Derotation (SDRRD), and to compare its corrective outcomes and biomechanical performance with traditional surgery using finite element analysis. Materials and methods: Three finite element models, including the single-rod fixed pedicle screw model (M1), the double-rod polyaxial pedicle screw model (M2), and the double-rod monoplane pedicle screw model (M3) were constructed using CT data from a Lenke 1 C N adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patient. The rod rotation technique was applied in M1 and M2, while the SDRRD technique was implemented in M3. The surgical outcomes in three dimensions and the biomechanical outcomes in the spine and implants were investigated following the simulation of the corrective process. Result: Regarding correction efficacy, M2 and M3 overmatched M1 in the coronal and sagittal planes, while M3 achieved superior axial rotation correction compared to M1 and M2. The stress on the apical vertebra is most considerable, while that on the lower instrumented vertebra is lowest in the vertebrae and intervertebral discs across M1 to M3. A considerable stress reduction is observed from M1 to M3 in most regions, with the highest stress in M1 and the lowest in M3. There is no considerable difference in the maximum stress of the implants among the three groups. Conclusion: The SDRRD technique yields favourable outcomes in coronal and sagittal plane correction, particularly in reducing axial rotation. Moreover, SDRRD effectively minimizes the stress experienced by the vertebrae and intervertebral discs.
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.