Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2026
Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Published on: June 6, 2025
The effect of interbody cage positioning on lumbosacral vertebral endplate failure in compression
Robert D Labrom1, Juay-Seng Tan, Christopher W Reilly
1Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Study Design:
A biomechanical investigation using a human cadaver, multisegmental lumbosacral spine model.
Objectives:
To determine if 2 small, posterolaterally positioned titanium mesh interbody cages would provide superior construct strength and stiffness in compression compared to central cage placement. In addition, determine construct stiffness with interbody cages as opposed to an intact spine and assess the effect of bone mineral density (BMD).
Summary Of Background Data:
Previous work has shown that the posterolateral corners of the lumbosacral endplates are stronger than the anterior and central regions. Information to suggest appropriate interbody cage positioning to avoid subsidence into adjacent vertebrae would be valuable for spine surgeons and implant designers.
Methods:
A total of 27 functional spinal units from L3 to S1 were dual x-ray absorptiometry scanned for BMD, instrumented with pedicle screw systems, and tested to failure in compression with titanium mesh interbody cages placed in 1 of 3 positions: 2 small posterolateral, 2 small central, or 1 large central. Analysis of covariance was conducted to compare failure load and stiffness across the different cage configurations. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze stiffness between functional spinal units with intact disc, discectomy, or interbody cages. Failure load was correlated against BMD.
Results:
Of the 3 placement patterns, 2 small titanium mesh cages in the posterolateral corners had 20% higher failure loads, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.20). Stiffness in compression for the 3 cage positions was not significantly different (P = 0.82). All intact discs with posterior instrumentation were significantly stiffer than any of the cage patterns (P = 0.0001). BMD of the vertebrae significantly correlated with failure loads (P = 0.007).
Conclusions:
The placement of 2 small interbody cages posterolaterally tended to result in higher failure loads than central cage placement, although the results were not statistically significant. It is noteworthy that cage placement in any position resulted in a less stiff construct in compression than with an intact disc.
