ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Biomechanical assessment of endoscopic cross-over top decompression in cervical spinal stenosis: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectiveIn patients with severe central canal stenosis or posterior vertebral body osteophytes, endoscopic techniques often face challenges such as limited decompression range, endoscopic visual blind spots, and inadequate decompression. To address these limitations, our team innovatively developed a modified posterior cervical endoscopic decompression technique termed "Cross-over top Decompression (COTD)", drawing on clinical experience in lumbar endoscopic decompression and biomechanical principles. This study aims to compare its biomechanical performance with endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (Endo-ULBD), to verify its feasibility for comprehensive spinal canal decompression.
methodsThree finite element models were established: normal cervical C5-6 (M0), Endo-ULBD (M1), and Cross-over top decompression (M2). Segmental range of motion (ROM) and maximum Von Mises stress of the intervertebral disc at C5-6 were analyzed to evaluate biomechanical stability.
resultsRegarding the range of ROM, both M1 and M2 exhibited a consistent pattern of changes when compared to M0. Specifically, the ROM in both models increased markedly by 90.4% during flexion and by 2.95% during extension. In contrast, the increases observed during left lateral bending, right lateral bending, left rotation, and right rotation were all below 14%, with no obvious differences between M1 and M2. Regarding the maximum Von Mises stress on intervertebral discs, the patterns of change observed in models M1 and M2 were notably consistent. Compared to model M0, both models exhibited a marked increase in stress under flexion conditions, with an increase of 91.46% in M1 and 92.49% in M2. In contrast, stress variations during extension, lateral bending, and rotational movements were minimal, with no obvious differences in stress values between M1 and M2.
conclusionCompared with the normal cervical spine (M0), both Cross-over top and Endo-ULBD (M1) result in increased segmental ROM and elevated intervertebral disc stress, but these parameters show no obvious difference between the two techniques. By preserving facet joint stability, Cross-over top achieves adequate central spinal canal decompression while maintaining comparable biomechanical stability to Endo-ULBD, providing a reliable biomechanical basis for its clinical application.
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.