ArticleNeurospine2025
Biomechanical Evaluation of Anterior Plate Fixation With Cage for Basilar Invagination With Atlantoaxial Dislocation: A Cadaveric Study.
Article in Neurospine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of 2 anterior fixation techniques (clival plate fixation [CPF], transoral atlantoaxial reduction plate [TARP]) versus posterior occipitocervical fixation (POCF) for basilar invagination with atlantoaxial dislocation (BI-AAD), under varying atlantoaxial lateral mass cage heights (4-10 mm).
methodsSeven fresh cadaveric specimens (occiput to C3, Oc-C3) were tested in the following conditions: (1) intact state; (2) BI-AAD state; (3) BI-AAD+CPF; (4) BI-AAD+TARP fixation; (5) BI-AAD+POCF. A pure 1.5 N·m moment loads to specimens in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. Range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) values at Oc-C2 were calculated and compared.
resultsROM of the C1-2 segment under the intact and BI-AAD states were as follows: 9.3°±4.6° versus 21.3°±8.3° in flexion, 4.6°±1.9° versus 9.3°±3.8° in extension, 3.6°±2.2° versus 12.0°±6.5° in lateral bending, and 68.9°±14.4° versus 76.6°±6.6° in axial rotation, respectively. Compared with BI-AAD states, all internal fixation techniques significantly reduced the ROM of the Oc-C2 segment. TARP fixation exhibited larger ROM in flexion-extension. While in lateral bending and axial rotation, the ROM values for the anterior plate constructs were smaller than that of POCF, with a statistically significant difference observed between CPF and POCF. Cage height variations showed no significant impact on overall biomechanical stability.
conclusionAnterior plate fixation techniques demonstrated superior resistance to lateral bending and rotational forces compared to posterior approaches, with clival plate fixation exhibiting optimal biomechanical stability for BI-AAD. Variations in cage height exhibited negligible impact on stability when internal fixation achieved adequate rigidity.
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.