Finite element analysis of a ball‐and‐socket artificial disc design to suppress excessive loading on facet joints: A comparative study with ProDisc
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facet arthrosis at surgical level was identified as major complication after total disc replacement (TDR). One of the reasons for facet arthrosis after TDR has been speculated to be the hypermobility of artificial discs. Accordingly, the artificial disc that can constrain the hypermobility of ball-and-socket type artificial discs and reduce loading on facet joints is demanded. The proposed artificial disc, which is named as NewPro, was constructed based on the FDA-approved ProDisc but contained an interlocking system consisting of additional bars and grooves to control the range of motion (ROM) of lumbar spine in all anatomical planes. The three-dimensional finite element model of L1 to L5 was developed first, and the biomechanical effects were compared between ProDisc and NewPro. The ROM and facet contact force of NewPro were significantly decreased by 42.7% and 14% in bending and by 45.6% and 34.4% in torsion, respectively, compared with the values of ProDisc, thanks to the interlocking system. In addition, the ROM and facet contact force could be selectively constrained by modifying the location of the bars. The proposed artificial disc with the interlocking system was able to constrain the intersegmental rotation effectively and reduce excessive loading on facet joints, although wear and strength tests would be needed prior to clinical applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".