ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Experimental quantification of resistance to subsidence conferred by endplate-specific expandable implants in anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn anterior lumbar interbody fusion, implant subsidence remains a major complication, influenced by both patient- and implant-related factors. Cage sizing has been shown to influence the subsidence load and is dependent on both the surgical approach and the patient's anatomic characteristics. Larger cage footprints have been shown to increase axial stability by allowing for a greater area of contact, but their limited sizes and footprints are not always able to accommodate the significant variance in vertebral body shape, endplate dimensions, and epiphysial rim depth. Therefore, the current study aims to quantify the incremental resistance to subsidence conferred by the use of novel endplate-specific expandable implants over conventional, static implants.
methodsFifteen cadaveric spines were reconstructed via computed tomography (CT) scans of the L5 vertebra, and the endplates and cortical shell were isolated from the inner trabecular core to recreate bone surrogates. The novel implant was positioned on each bone surrogate in the unexpanded (control) or expanded (endplate-specific expandable) configuration and compressed at a rate of 5 mm/min. The subsidence load and construct stiffness were evaluated for each group.
resultsThe subsidence load of the expandable implants quantified in 3478 N ± 588 was 20% greater than that of the control group (p < 0.05). No difference was found in construct stiffness (p > 0.05). There was no correlation (r = 0.260, p = 0.350) between the stiffness and epiphyseal rim contact, whereas a positive correlation (r = 0.796, p < 0.001) was found between the subsidence load and increased epiphyseal rim contact in the expandable implant group only.
conclusionsIn our study, endplate-specific expandable ALIF implants have shown higher resistance to subsidence than static implants. While, these results must be corroborated by clinical data, the superiority here identified indicates the potential for these implants to be advantageous over static implants. The linear correlation between the epiphyseal rim cross-sectional area of the endplate and the subsidence load, as found in the current study, highlights the potential for estimating the subsidence load during preoperative planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.