Compares biomechanical performance of two-screw and four-screw devices in ACDF, suggesting comparable outcomes.
Both two-screw and four-screw zero-profile fusion devices are commonly used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), yet their biomechanical differences remain unclear. This study compared their biomechanical performance using a validated three-dimensional finite element (FE) model of the C2–T1 cervical spine reconstructed from computed tomography data. The devices were implanted at the C5/6 segment to simulate ACDF under various motion conditions. A 75 N follower load and a 1.0 N·m moment were applied to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The two-screw zero-profile device demonstrated higher von Mises stress on the cage and plate but lower stress on the screws than the four-screw device. Stress distributions on the cage, screws, and adjacent vertebral bodies were comparable across models. After fusion, both devices exhibited similar stress characteristics. Overall, the two-screw zero-profile fusion device may achieve biomechanical behavior comparable to that of the four-screw zero-profile fusion device under the investigated static loading scenario. Further long-term clinical and biomechanical investigations are warranted to clarify its biomechanical behavior and potential implications following ACDF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: