Biomechanical Comparison of Anterolateral Plate, Lateral Plate, and Pedicle Screws-Rods for Enhancing Anterolateral Lumbar Interbody Cage Stabilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. A repeated measures in vitro flexibility experiment was performed in calf spines. Objectives. To determine the biomechanical differences among three techniques for augmenting stability of an anterolateral lumbar threaded interbody cage. Background. Stand-alone interbody cages are known to inadequately stabilize the spine. Surgeons often add supplementary instrumentation for a more stable construct. Methods. Six L2–L5 calf spines (L3–L4 level instrumented) were tested: 1) intact; 2) with a single anterolateral interbody cage; 3) with cage plus anterolateral plating; 4) with cage plus lateral plating; and 5) with cage plus pedicle screw fixation. Specimens were loaded in each anatomic plane quasistatically (maximum 5.0 Nm). Angular motion was measured stereophotogrammetrically. Results. The stand-alone interbody cage allowed significantly less range of motion than normal during all loading modes except axial rotation. Addition of pedicle screws-rods, anterolateral plate, or lateral plate significantly further reduced range of motion in all planes. Pedicle screws slightly outperformed the anterolateral plate during extension and lateral bending and slightly outperformed the lateral plate during flexion, extension, and left axial rotation (range of motion differences <0.65°, P < 0.05). The anterolateral plate outperformed the lateral plate during flexion and extension, whereas the lateral plate outperformed the anterolateral plate during lateral bending (range of motion difference <0.57°, P < 0.05). Conclusion. Anterolateral or lateral lumbar plating increases stability significantly compared to stand-alone interbody cage fixation. These findings support anterolateral or lateral plate fixation as a potential clinical alternative to pedicle screws-rods in this role and may obviate the need for combined anterior and posterior approaches when spinal instability exists. Anterolateral plate, lateral plate, or pedicle screws-rods were added to lumbar calf spines with a single anterolateral threaded interbody cage. Stability from each augmenting device was compared during physiologic loads. Pedicle screwsrods slightly outperformed plates, but plates significantly enhanced stability and therefore deserve further consideration as a surgical alternative.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".