ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Biomechanical advantage of anterior over central cage placement in XLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation: a finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis finite element study aimed to compare the biomechanical differences between anterior and central cage placement in L3-L4 XLIF supplemented with bilateral pedicle screw fixation, to evaluate the biomechanical impact of cage positioning on minimizing cage subsidence risk.
methodsThree L1-L5 finite element models were developed from healthy volunteer CT data: intact (Group A), L3-L4 XLIF with anterior cage placement (Group B), and central cage placement (Group C). Loads simulating flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation were applied. Segmental stability and cage stress distribution were analyzed.
resultsBoth surgical groups markedly decreased range of motion (ROM) at L3-L4 compared to Group A. The peak stress on the cage was consistently lower in Group B than in Group C across all motions. The screw-rod system stress in Group B was higher than in Group C in all motions except flexion. Facet joint stress in adjacent segments was higher in Group C than in Groups A and B.
conclusionIn this finite element model, anterior cage placement was associated with lower cage stress and higher posterior instrumentation stress than central placement, while segmental stability remained similar. These results indicate a different load-sharing pattern and suggest potential biomechanical differences in adjacent segment loading. Further research is needed to clarify the clinical implications.
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.