Articles   |    
A Comparative Biomechanical Investigation of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Cages: Central and Bilateral Approaches*
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the Maurice E. Müller Institute for Biomechanics, University of Bern, Bern
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2000 Mar 01;82(3):383-93
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case


Background: Some biomechanical studies have been performed to evaluate the stabilization provided by interbody cages, but there are virtually no comparative data for the different designs. Furthermore, most investigators have used animal models, which may have led to different results due to morphological variation in the end plates and articular facets. The objectives of the current study were to evaluate whether two different anterior cage designs (BAK and SynCage) performed differently with respect to immediate stabilization of the spine, whether the cages stabilized the spine significantly compared with its intact condition, and whether the addition of supplementary translaminar screw fixation further stabilized the spine. Stabilization was defined as a reduction in motion after insertion of an implant.

Methods: Twelve lumbar functional spinal units from human cadavera were tested under pure moments of flexion, extension, bilateral axial rotation, and bilateral lateral bending to a maximum of ten newton-meters. The relative intervertebral motions were measured, with use of an optoelectronic camera system, under three test conditions: with the spine intact, after insertion of anterior interbody cages, and after insertion of anterior interbody cages supplemented with translaminar screw fixation. Six specimens were tested for each type of cage: a bilateral, porous, threaded cylinder (BAK) and a central, porous, contoured implant with end-plate fit (SynCage).

Results: The cages performed in a similar manner in all directions of loading, with no significant differences between the two designs. The cages significantly stabilized the spine compared with its intact condition in flexion, axial rotation, and lateral bending (the median value for motion was 40, 48, and 29 percent of the value for the intact condition, respectively; p = 0.002 for all three directions). Compared with the cages alone, translaminar screw fixation provided no additional stabilizing effect in these directions but it significantly increased the stability of the spine in extension (the median value for motion was 34 percent of the value with the cages alone; p = 0.013).

Conclusions: There were no differences in the stabilization provided by the two different cage designs. Use of the cages alone stabilized the spine in all directions except extension, and use of supplementary translaminar screw fixation provided additional stabilization only in extension.

Clinical Relevance: This study demonstrated that interbody cages do not stabilize the lumbar spine in extension, and this observation was not altered by the use of substantially different designs. If the lack of stabilization in extension is a clinical problem, possible solutions include the avoidance of extension postoperatively or the use of supplementary fixation.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org


    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    Oklahoma - The University of Oklahoma
    Louisiana - Ochsner Health System
    S. Carolina - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Univerity of South Carlonina
    Pennsylvania - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center