ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Biomechanical Effects of Two Types of 3D-Printed Prosthesis Reconstruction After Single-Segmental Total En Bloc Spondylectomy: A Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTotal en bloc spondylectomy (TES) has emerged as an effective surgical intervention for spinal tumor management. The selection of prosthesis for spinal reconstruction significantly influences patient's postoperative outcomes. This study aims to analyze and compare the biomechanical effects of two types of 3D-printed prostheses and titanium mesh cage (TMC) after TES.
methodsAn intact finite element model (FEM) of L1-L5 segment was developed and validated for simulation. Three L3 TES models were constructed. Model A utilized a 3D-printed prosthesis with an artificial pedicle, model B employed a stand-alone 3D-printed prosthesis, and model C used a TMC. Following parameters were recorded and analyzed to evaluate the biomechanical effects of the three models: (1) the range of motion (ROM), (2) stress of the internal fixation systems, and (3) stress of the L2 inferior endplate and L4 superior endplate.
resultsThe ROMs of all three models were significantly restricted in all directions. Compared with TMC, the implantation of 3D printed prosthesis significantly enhanced spinal stability during extension. The ROMs of models A and B were significantly lower than that of model C during extension, decreasing by 15.2% and 36.4%, respectively. The use of 3D-printed prosthesis for anterior column reconstruction could reduce the stress of prosthesis itself and adjacent endplates. Compared with model C, the maximal decrease in the stress of the endplate of models A and B was 41.5% during flexion and 49.1% during right lateral bending, respectively. In all directions, the stress of the prosthesis was largest in model C, followed by model A and smallest in model B, with statistically significant differences observed.
conclusionAfter single-segmental TES, 3D-printed prosthesis with favorable endplate matching could obtain better biomechanical effects, thereby reducing the risk of internal fixation failure and increasing the postoperative spinal stability.
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.