ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Numerical evaluation of spinal reconstruction using a 3D printed vertebral body replacement implant: effects of material anisotropy.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Effects of Two Types of 3D-Printed Prosthesis Reconstruction After Single-Segmental Total En Bloc Spondylectomy: A Finite Element Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Biomechanical and clinical comparison of different prosthetic in reconstruction following totalFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Artificial vertebral implants have been widely used for functional reconstruction of vertebral defects caused by tumors or trauma. However, the evaluation of their biomechanical properties often neglects the influence of material anisotropy derived from the host bone and implant's microstructures. Hence, this study aims to investigate the effect of material anisotropy on the safety and stability of vertebral reconstruction. Material and methods: Two finite element models were developed to reflect the difference of material properties between linear elastic isotropy and nonlinear anisotropy. Their biomechanical evaluation was carried out under different load conditions including flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. These performances of two models with respect to safety and stability were analyzed and compared quantitatively based on the predicted von Mises stress, displacement and effective strain. Results: The maximum von Mises stress of each component in both models was lower than the yield strength of respective material, while the predicted results of nonlinear anisotropic model were generally below to those of the linear elastic isotropic model. Furthermore, the maximum von Mises stress of natural vertebra and reconstructed system was decreased by 2-37 MPa and 20-61 MPa, respectively. The maximum reductions for the translation displacement of the artificial vertebral body implant and motion range of whole model were reached to 0.26 mm and 0.77°. The percentage of effective strain elements on the superior and inferior endplates adjacent to implant was diminished by up to 19.7% and 23.1%, respectively. Conclusion: After comprehensive comparison, these results indicated that the finite element model with the assumption of linear elastic isotropy may underestimate the safety of the reconstruction system, while misdiagnose higher stability by overestimating the range of motion and bone growth capability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.