ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Biomechanical effects of different bone conditions on oblique lumbar interbody fusion augmented with various fixation options: a finite element analysis.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the biomechanical properties of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with various fixation methods under different bone conditions (normal bone, osteopenia and osteoporosis). Methods: The L3-L5 finite element (FE) models of normal bone (NB), osteopenia (OS) and osteoporosis (OP) were constructed. The OLIF combined with four kinds of internal fixation surgery models were constructed: OLIF Stand-alone (SA) ; OLIF + lateral plate fixation (OLIF + LP) ; OLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + UPS) ; OLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + BPS). A load of 500 N and a torque of 7.5 Nm were applied to the upper surface of L3 to simulate flexion (FL), extension (EX), left bending (LB), right bending (RB), left rotation (LR) and right rotation (RR). The range of motion (ROM) of the model, the maximum stress of Cage, L5 upper endplate and internal fixation were recorded. Results: (1) ROM comparison: Compared with the intact model, SA ROM decreased the least, BPS decreased the most, LP decreased significantly in the LB and RB, and was less stable in the FL and EX. (2) Stress comparison: the stress of SA endplate is the largest, the stress of BPS is the smallest, and the stress of LP is lower than that of UPS in LB and RB. The Cage stress is lower than its yield strength. The fixation stress of LP was roughly the same as that of BPS in LB and RB. In the NB and OS models, the fixation stress of LP under FL exceeds the minimum fatigue strength of the material by 22.72% and 33.78%, respectively. In the OP, the fixation stress exceeds the minimum fatigue strength of the material at FL and EX, and reaches 53.25% (>50%) at FL. Conclusion: OLIF supplemented with internal fixation can improve segment stability, and BPS is superior to UPS and LP fixation in limiting segment ROM and reducing stress. Under OP, the LP fixation stress at FL and EX exceeds the minimum fatigue strength of the material, which may increase the risk of fracture and internal fixation 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.