Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2026

An Anesthesia, Surgery, and Harvest Method for the Evaluation of Transpedicular Screws Using an In Vivo Porcine Lumbar Spine Model
Published on: May 31, 2017
Comparison of stiffness and failure load of two cervical spine fixation techniques in an in vitro human model
Robert Hart1, Joel Gillard, Shilpa Prem
1Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098, USA. hartro@ohsu.edu
Objective:
Recently, an unpaired threaded cage has been introduced as a fusion device for the cervical spine. No biomechanical comparison of a stand-alone single interbody threaded cage to a standard plated Smith-Robinson construct has been reported. Accordingly, an in vitro biomechanical comparison of a single threaded cylindrical interbody fusion cage versus a plated Smith-Robinson cervical discectomy and fusion construct was conducted to establish whether a single cylindrical interbody cage in the cervical spine would perform mechanically as well as a plated structural interbody graft.
Methods:
Six fresh-frozen human cadaveric cervical spines were used for biomechanical testing. Flexion-extension and load-to-failure testing were performed on two single-level discectomy and interbody fusion constructs from each specimen.
Results:
Initial range of motion (ROM) was significantly greater for the specimens implanted with a cage than specimens implanted with a structural graft and plate (9.1 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees vs 5.8 degrees +/- 2.4 degrees ; P = 0.040). Initial stiffness in flexion in caged specimens was significantly less than in plated specimens (0.7 +/- 0.3 vs 0.9 +/- 0.3 Nm/ degrees ; P = 0.028). Cage specimens also failed at a significantly lower load than plated specimens (9.8 +/- 3.5 vs 15.8 +/- 4.1 Nm; P = 0.0104).
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that a plated Smith-Robinson cervical discectomy and fusion construct provides greater stiffness and failure load and reduced ROM across operated levels than a single interbody cage construct. Although clinical success may not directly correlate with biomechanical data, these results raise concern regarding the use of a single threaded interbody cage as a stand-alone device for cervical interbody fusion.
