ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Effects of Parameter Combinations in Cervical Rotation-Traction Manipulation on Intervertebral Foramen Opening and Biomechanical Responses: A Finite Element Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative perioperative pain assessment using PainVisionJournal of anesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To investigate, using a finite element model, the effects of different combinations of rotation, flexion, and re-rotation parameters in cervical rotation-traction manipulation (CRTM) on intervertebral foramen opening and biomechanical distribution, and to provide a basis for segment-specific parameter optimization. Methods: A validated C2-T1 finite element model, derived from CT images of a healthy adult male volunteer, simulated CRTM by sequentially applying rotation, flexion, re-rotation, and upward traction. Rotation angles: 60°, 65°, 70°, 75°; flexion: 20°, 30°, 40°; re-rotation: 5°, 10°, 15°, with rotation+re-rotation sum ≤80°, yielding 27 combinations. Vertical diameter changes at C3/4-C7/T1 were measured, and stresses in vertebrae, discs, and facet cartilage were analyzed via stress cloud maps. Results: Foraminal opening showed segment-specific characteristics; increased flexion promoted opening, with flexion 40°being most effective. Optimal combinations were: C3/4 with axial rotation of 70°, re-rotation of 10°, and flexion of 40° (AR70-10_FL40); C4/5 with AR65-15_FL40; C5/6 with AR60-15_FL40; and C6/7 and C7/T1 with AR60-10_FL40. Peak vertebral stress generally corresponded to the segments showing maximal foraminal opening. Stress trends in the vertebral bodies, discs, and facet articular cartilage were consistent, following the order AR60-10_FL40 < AR65-15_FL40 < AR60-15_FL40 < AR70-10_FL40. High-stress regions were mainly located in the upper and middle cervical spine, with differences reflected primarily in stress magnitude rather than stress location. Conclusion: CRTM effects appear parameter-dependent and segment-specific. Flexion may be key in promoting opening, with segment-specific responses to rotation/re-rotation. Parameter adjustments affect both opening and stress distribution, suggesting segmental controllability. However, as these findings derive solely from a finite element model, they are preliminary biomechanical evidence, not directly applicable clinically. Further clinical and cadaveric studies are warranted.
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.