Does Anterolateral Cage Insertion Enhance Immediate Stabilization of the Functional Spinal Unit?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: The three-dimensional flexibility of six human lumbar functional spinal units was measured after the anterolateral insertion of an interbody cage. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an interbody cage inserted from an anterolateral direction stabilizes the spine with respect to the intact state and to compare the finding with that from the same cage inserted from an anterior direction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several biomechanical studies have shown that interbody cages do not stabilize the spine in extension. It is suspected that this may be caused by the destruction of the anterior longitudinal ligament and anterior anulus fibrosus. METHODS: Six human cadaveric lumbar functional spinal units were tested under pure moments of flexion, extension, bilateral axial rotation, and bilateral lateral bending to a maximum of 10 Nm. The relative intervertebral motions were measured by an optoelectronic camera system with the spinal units in the intact condition, after discectomy, after anterolateral interbody cage stabilization, and with additional translaminar screw fixation. The implant used was a central, porous, contoured implant with endplate fit. The results were compared with those of a previous study, which used the same implant inserted from an anterior direction. RESULTS: The anterolateral cage insertion significantly decreased the motion in comparison with the intact situation in flexion and lateral bending, but not in extension or axial rotation. No differences were found between the anterior and anterolateral insertion approaches in flexion or extension, but differences were observed in axial rotation and lateral bending, in which the anterolateral approach resulted in more motion. Additional translaminar screw fixation reduced motion to below intact levels in all loading directions. None of the surgical procedures introduced asymmetrical behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Anterolateral cage insertion did not stabilize the spine in extension or axial rotation and was not different from the anterior approach in flexion and extension. Additional translaminar screw fixation stabilized in all directions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".