ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Simulation and validation of spinal construct testing based on ASTM F1717.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Spinal fixation constructs must demonstrate reliable mechanical performance before clinical use. ASTM F1717 provides a standardized vertebrectomy model for comparative static evaluation. This study assessed construct mechanics and examined whether validated finite element analysis (FEA) can support simulation based design decisions. Methods: Constructs comprised Ti-6Al-4V ELI pedicle screws and rods; the support blocks were UHMWPE. Testing followed ASTM F1717 under static compression and tension at 25 mm/min. Four screw configurations varied diameter and length (640, 650, 740, 750). A model form investigation compared a jig included model (JIM) and a jig excluded model (JEM) to quantify the tradeoff between accuracy and efficiency. Results: Experiment-FEA agreement was strong across metrics, with errors in most cases below 5 percent; the largest deviation was 7.12 percent for the flexion force at 20 mm in the 740 group. Plastic deformation of the rod occurred before 20 mm, which supports using the reaction force at 20 mm as a robust comparator. Increasing screw diameter produced larger reaction forces than increasing screw length, while greater construct stiffness was associated with shorter yield displacement of the rod. Relative to JIM, JEM reduced computational time by about 20-32 percent while maintaining reaction force differences within about 0.3 percent in the verification runs. Discussion: Validated FEA reproduced ASTM F1717 construct behavior within prespecified acceptance bounds and can complement early design screening. The parametric analysis highlights diameter as the dominant geometric factor for construct level force response under the tested conditions, whereas length had a comparatively minor influence. These findings indicate that the evaluated screw configurations can enhance structural durability and surgical safety, and they support the use of validated FEA as a reliable alternative to selected physical tests during early stages of implant design.
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.