The Effect of Interbody Cage Positioning on Lumbosacral Vertebral Endplate Failure in Compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical investigation using a human cadaver, multisegmental lumbosacral spine model. OBJECTIVES: To determine if 2 small, posterolaterally positioned titanium mesh interbody cages would provide superior construct strength and stiffness in compression compared to central cage placement. In addition, determine construct stiffness with interbody cages as opposed to an intact spine and assess the effect of bone mineral density (BMD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work has shown that the posterolateral corners of the lumbosacral endplates are stronger than the anterior and central regions. Information to suggest appropriate interbody cage positioning to avoid subsidence into adjacent vertebrae would be valuable for spine surgeons and implant designers. METHODS: A total of 27 functional spinal units from L3 to S1 were dual x-ray absorptiometry scanned for BMD, instrumented with pedicle screw systems, and tested to failure in compression with titanium mesh interbody cages placed in 1 of 3 positions: 2 small posterolateral, 2 small central, or 1 large central. Analysis of covariance was conducted to compare failure load and stiffness across the different cage configurations. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze stiffness between functional spinal units with intact disc, discectomy, or interbody cages. Failure load was correlated against BMD. RESULTS: Of the 3 placement patterns, 2 small titanium mesh cages in the posterolateral corners had 20% higher failure loads, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.20). Stiffness in compression for the 3 cage positions was not significantly different (P = 0.82). All intact discs with posterior instrumentation were significantly stiffer than any of the cage patterns (P = 0.0001). BMD of the vertebrae significantly correlated with failure loads (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The placement of 2 small interbody cages posterolaterally tended to result in higher failure loads than central cage placement, although the results were not statistically significant. It is noteworthy that cage placement in any position resulted in a less stiff construct in compression than with an intact disc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".