ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Biomechanical comparison of seven occipital-cervical fixation constructs using finite element modeling.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
Study Design: This was a basic science study. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine which occipital-cervical (OC) fixation construct best balances construct stiffness with minimization of occipital screw pullout forces. Materials and Methods: Finite element analysis was used to simulate seven OC construct variations spanning across C1 with fixation in C2 and C3. Variations included the use of occiput rods, keel plates with varying width, two-hole clamps, two-hole clamps in addition to medial or lateral one-hole clamps, and occiput screw diameter. Modeling was in accordance with ASTM F2706/ISO 12189 guidelines. Materials were in accordance with ASTM F1295/ASTM F1839/ISO 10243 guidelines. Outcomes included bending stiffness, axial screw pullout reaction forces, and von Mises stress distribution to identify stress localization and predicted failure modes. Constructs were ranked using multiattribute utility theory (MAUT). Results: Construct E (comprised two-hole clamps with added one-hole medial clamps) demonstrated the highest bending stiffness (820 N.mm/deg) and the highest MAUT utility score (0.79), representing the optimal balance of stiffness and minimized screw pullout forces. Construct F (comprised two-hole clamps alone) demonstrated the lowest bending stiffness (509 N.mm/deg). Conclusions: A construct composed of medially fixed one-hole and two-hole clamps provided the best balance of bending stiffness and minimized occipital screw pullout reaction forces. Aligning screws near the median plane, using bilateral clamp fixation, and avoiding components that mechanically join the two rods improved construct performance. Increasing occipital screw diameter from 4.5 mm to 5.0 mm had little biomechanical impact. Stress localization at occipital component-rod interfaces suggests a potential weak point with risk of notching and fatigue failure.
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.