Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2026
Precision Measurements and Parametric Models of Vertebral Endplates
Published on: September 17, 2019
In vitro biomechanics of an expandable vertebral body replacement with self-adjusting end plates
Glenn R Buttermann1, Andrew L Freeman, Brian P Beaubien
1Midwest Spine Institute, Stillwater, MN 55082, USA. butte011@umn.edu
Background Context:
Unstable burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine may be treated surgically. Vertebral body replacements (VBRs) give anterior column support and, when used with supplemental fixation, impart rigidity to the injured segments. Although some VBRs are expandable, device congruity to the vertebral end plates is imprecise and may lead to stress risers and device subsidence.
Purpose:
The objective of this study was to compare the rigidity of a VBR that self-adjusts to the adjacent vertebral end plates versus structural bone allograft and with an unsupported anterior column in a traumatic burst fracture reconstruction model.
Study Design:
Biomechanical flexibility testing with rod strain measurement.
Patient Sample:
Twelve T11-L3 human spine segments.
Outcome Measures:
Range of motion, neutral zone, and posterior fixation rod stress (moments).
Methods:
Flexibility testing was performed to ± 6 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation on 12 intact human T11-L3 specimens. Burst fractures were created in L1, and flexibility testing was repeated in three additional states: subtotal corpectomy with posterior instrumentation (PI) only from T12 to L2, reconstruction with a femoral strut allograft and PI, and reconstruction with a VBR (with self-adjusting end plates) and PI. The PI consisted of pedicle screws and strain gage instrumented rods that were calibrated to measure rod stress via flexion-extension bending moments.
Results:
There was no statistical difference in range of motion or neutral zone between the strut graft and VBR constructs, which both had less motion than the PI-only construct in flexion/extension and torsion and were both less than the intact values in flexion/extension and lateral bending (p < .05). Posterior rod moments were significantly greater for the PI-only construct in flexion/extension relative to the strut graft and VBR states (p = .03).
Conclusions:
This study, which simulated the immediate postoperative state, suggests that a VBR with self-adjusting end plate components has rigidity similar to the standard strut graft when combined with PI. Posterior rod stress was not significantly increased with this type of VBR compared with the strut graft reconstruction. The benefits of burst fracture stabilization using a self-adjusting VBR ultimately will not be known until long-term clinical studies are performed.