Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42151274›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Biomechanical comparison of two-screw and four-screw zero-profile fusion devices in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using finite element analysis.

Xingjin Wang, Minghe Yao, Chengyi Huang, Tingkui Wu, Kangkang Huang, Hao Liu, Beiyu Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Xingjin Wang *Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Rd, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Minghe Yao *Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Rd, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Chengyi Huang *Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Rd, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Tingkui WuDepartment of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Rd, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Kangkang HuangDepartment of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Rd, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Hao LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Rd, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Beiyu WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Rd, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. dove-baker@163.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province 2025ZNSFSC1786
6 · The paper itself

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

Bone ScrewsCervical VertebraeDiskectomySpinal FusionBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisHumansStress, MechanicalTomography, X-Ray ComputedAnterior cervical discectomy and fusionBiomechanicsFinite element analysisImplant–bone interfaceZero-profile fusion device

Identifiers

PMID42151274
PMCPMC13376210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.