ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Biomechanical effects of supplemental posterior cervical stabilization in one-to three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis of construct length-dependent stress shielding and adjacent segment mechanics.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This finite element analysis study aimed to compare the biomechanical behavior of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with circumferential cervical fusion (CCF) across one-, two-, and three-level constructs, to elucidate the length-dependent contribution of supplemental posterior fixation. Methods: A C3-C7 finite element model was developed from CT scans. Seven scenarios were simulated: intact spine; 1-, 2-, and 3-level ACDF; and corresponding CCF constructs (ACDF plus bilateral posterior facet cages). A 73.6 N axial load with ±1.0 Nm moments simulated flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Stress on vertebrae, instrumentation, and adjacent segments (C3/4, C5/6, C6/7 facet capsules and discs) was analyzed. Results: The biomechanical benefit of CCF was length-dependent. It reduced anterior plate stress relative to ACDF, with increasing reduction for longer constructs (8%-12% for 1-level, 10%-18% for 2-level, 15%-25% for 3-level). CCF provided greater vertebral stress shielding. All fusions increased adjacent facet capsule stress, slightly more with CCF. However, CCF resulted in lower increases in adjacent disc stress than ACDF (e.g., at C6/7 disc: +1.6% for 3-level CCF vs. +5.8% for ACDF). Conclusions: One-level ACDF provides sufficient stability. For two-level constructs, posterior fixation offers measurable protection, beneficial for high-risk patients. For three-level constructs, CCF effectively mitigates the significant anterior stress concentration and elevated adjacent disc stress associated with standalone ACDF, despite a minor increase in facet capsule stress. Posterior augmentation should be considered based on construct length.
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.