ArticleScientific reports2026
Biomechanical comparison of two-screw and four-screw zero-profile fusion devices in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using finite element analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Both two-screw and four-screw zero-profile fusion devices are commonly used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), yet their biomechanical differences remain unclear. This study compared their biomechanical performance using a validated three-dimensional finite element (FE) model of the C2-T1 cervical spine reconstructed from computed tomography data. The devices were implanted at the C5/6 segment to simulate ACDF under various motion conditions. A 75 N follower load and a 1.0 N·m moment were applied to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The two-screw zero-profile device demonstrated higher von Mises stress on the cage and plate but lower stress on the screws than the four-screw device. Stress distributions on the cage, screws, and adjacent vertebral bodies were comparable across models. After fusion, both devices exhibited similar stress characteristics. Overall, the two-screw zero-profile fusion device may achieve biomechanical behavior comparable to that of the four-screw zero-profile fusion device under the investigated static loading scenario. Further long-term clinical and biomechanical investigations are warranted to clarify its biomechanical behavior and potential implications following ACDF.
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.