Effect of Implant Design and Endplate Preparation on the Compressive Strength of Interbody Fusion Constructs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A human cadaveric study on the compressive strength of different lumbar interbody fusion implants and endplate preparation techniques was performed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the axial compressive strength of an implant with peripheral endplate contact as opposed to full surface contact, and to assess whether removal of the central bony endplate affects the axial compressive strength. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs has been compared between implants and bone grafts. Neither implant design nor endplate preparation has been shown to affect strength. Removal of the central bony endplate for bone grafts was noted to improve graft incorporation but also to facilitate subsidence. METHODS: A total of 44 vertebrae were tested in four experimental groups by combining two interbody implants (full-surface vs peripheral surface support) with two endplate preparation techniques (intact bony endplate vs removal of the central bony endplate). Specimens were tested to ultimate compressive failure using a 50 N/second ramped load. Yield strength and ultimate compressive strength were compared between groups using two-factor analysis of covariance. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Stepwise linear regressions assessed the predictive power of age, bone mineral content, and the implant's normalized endplate coverage on yield strength and ultimate compressive strength. RESULTS: Neither implant design nor endplate preparation technique affected yield strength or ultimate compressive strength. Age, bone mineral content, and the normalized endplate coverage were strong predictors of yield strength (P < 0. 0001; r2 = 0.459) and ultimate compressive strength (P < 0.0001; r2 = 0.510). CONCLUSIONS: An implant with only peripheral support resting on the apophyseal ring offers axial mechanical strength similar to that of an implant with full support. Neither supplementary struts nor a solid implant face has any additional mechanical advantage, but reduces graft-host contact area. Removal of the central bony endplate is recommended because it does not affect the compressive strength and promotes graft incorporation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".