Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2026
Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Published on: August 6, 2019
In vitro fixator rod loading after transforaminal compared to anterior lumbar interbody fusion
A Kettler1, T Niemeyer, L Issler
1Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, University of Ulm, Helmholtzstrabe 14, D-89081 Ulm, Germany.
Background:
Cages are commonly used to assist lumbar interbody fusion. They are implanted from various approaches. In many cases internal fixators are added to provide sufficient stability. However, how the rods of these fixators are loaded and whether the kind of approach affects these loads is still unknown. The aim of this in vitro study therefore was to determine the loads acting on fixator rods and cages after anterior compared to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Methods:
Six intact human lumbar spine specimens (L1-5) were loaded in a spine tester with pure moments (+/-7.5 N m) in the frontal, sagittal and transverse plane. Loading was repeated, first, after the segments L2-3 and L4-5 were instrumented either with an anterior or a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage "stand alone" and, second, after additional stabilisation with an internal fixator. The rods of the fixator and the four "corners" of the cages were instrumented with strain gauges.
Findings:
The loads transmitted through the rods were highest in lateral bending. In this loading direction an axial distraction force of in median up to 140 N, an axial compression force of up to 100 N, and a resultant bending moment of up to 1.1 N m were measured in each rod. These loads tended to be lower for the anterior compared to the transforaminal approach. For comparison, the load applied was +/-7.5 N m. The axial strains recorded in the four "corners" of the cages considerably varied from one specimen to the other. Differences in cage strain between the two approaches could not be detected.
Interpretation:
The loads acting on the rods of the fixator were small compared to the load that was applied. Thus, other structures such as the cages or the facet joints still play an important role in load transfer. The type of approach (anterior or transforaminal) had only little effect on the loading of the rods. This also applies to the local loading of the cages, which probably more depends on the fit between cage and endplates and on the local stiffness properties of the adjacent vertebral bodies.
