ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Can the Stand-Alone Cervical Interfacet Fusion Achieve Spinal Stability? A Comprehensive Finite Element Analysis.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2026. 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.
- Boundary Conditions Affecting Finite Element Analyses of a Spinal Segment.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDegenerative pathologies of the cervical spine often involve facet and disc degeneration, leading to biomechanical instability of the cervical spine. A promising surgical solution is a cervical interfacet fusion system (CIFS), typically combined with an anterior disc cage to promote bone fusion and restore stability. However, the necessity of the anterior disc cage remains controversial because it increases surgical time, cost, and risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical performance of CIFS alone compared with its combination with an anterior disc cage using a C2-C7 finite element model.
methodsThe model was validated against literature data in terms of range of motion (RoM) and used to simulate 3 surgical scenarios: (i) anterior disc cage alone, (ii) CIFS alone, and (iii) CIFS combined with an anterior disc cage. Simulations were performed with C4-C5, C5-C6, and C4-C6 treated levels under flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending.
resultsModels (i) and (iii) eliminated motion at the treated levels but induced hypermobility and increased intradiscal pressure (IDP) at adjacent levels. Conversely, model (ii) preserved residual motion at the treated levels, providing mobility with RoM values within the average range of a healthy population and reducing intradiscal pressure at both the treated and adjacent levels, potentially protecting adjacent discs. However, model (ii) has a higher risk of pseudarthrosis due to the residual motion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights how a CIFS in cervical spine surgery is a cost-effective alternative that preserves mobility but requires careful patient selection to minimize risks such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent segment degeneration while emphasizing the need for postoperative muscle rehabilitation.
conclusionsThese results suggest that CIFS alone may provide a treatment that is both cost-effective and capable of preserving mobility with RoM values within the average range of a healthy population, especially with appropriate patient selection and muscle rehabilitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5:
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.