Biomechanical effects of a titanium intervertebral cage as a stand‐alone device, and in combination with locking plates in the canine caudal cervical spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the change in ex vivo biomechanical properties of the canine cervical spine, due to an intervertebral cage, both as a stand-alone device and in combination with plates. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental ex vivo study. ANIMALS: Cervical spinal segments (C5-C7) from eight canine cadavers. METHODS: The range of motion (ROM) and elastic zone stiffness (EZS) of the spines were determined with a four-point bending device in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation for four conditions: native, discectomy, cage (at C6-C7), and cage with plates (at C6-C7). The disc height index (DHI) for each condition was determined using radiography. RESULTS: Discectomy resulted in overall increased ROM (p < .01) and EZS (p < .05) and decreased DHI (p < .005) when compared to the native condition. Placement of the cage increased DHI (p < .001) and restored total ROM during flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation, and EZS during flexion/extension to the level of the native spine. Application of the plates further reduced the total ROM during flexion/extension (p < .001) and lateral bending (p < .001), but restored ROM in extension and EZS during lateral bending. No implant failure, subsidence, or significant cage migration occurred during loading. CONCLUSION: An anchorless intervertebral cage used as a stand-alone device was able to restore the disc height and spinal stability to the level of the native cervical spine, whereas the addition of plates further reduced the spinal unit mobility. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study implies that the intervertebral cage may be used as a stand-alone device in the spinal unit fixation in the canine cervical spine.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".