ArticleJOR spine2026
Are Ceramic Cages an Option for Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Comparative Biomechanical Numerical Study.
Article in JOR spine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The treatment of severe disc pathologies through lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) involves the insertion of an interbody cage into the degenerated disc space, together with a supporting fixation system. Conventional cage materials, such as Ti6Al4V and PEEK, present several limitations, most notably their non-biodegradability, increasing the risk of cage migration and long-term subsidence (up to 40% incidence). Bioceramics may represent an option while addressing the issue of biodegradability. This study preliminarily investigates the applicability of a commercial bioceramic as an interbody cage material for LIF. Methods: First, an intact L4-L5 functional spine unit (FSU) was validated under both pure moments and combined loading conditions. Subsequently, all surgical steps of the LIF procedure were simulated, followed by postoperative physiological loading to compare the mechanical performance of the ceramic device with standard titanium cages. Two surgical techniques, posterior-LIF (PLIF) and eXtreme-LIF (XLIF), were analyzed. Each simulation assessed the mechanical strength of the interbody cage, the posterior fixation, and the vertebral bone, together with the FSU kinematic. Results: The intact model accurately predicted literature-reported kinematics and intradiscal pressure, and the LIF model reproduced forces on titanium cages consistent with in vitro measurements on human specimens. Both XLIF and PLIF procedures resulted in significant kinematic stabilization of the FSU, with > 70% reduction in range of motion. For PLIF, ceramic cages sustained applied loads with no predicted failure, while XLIF showed minimal interface failure (< 0.6%). Compared with titanium, ceramic cages significantly reduced adjacent vertebral strain, lowering the subsidence risk, without overloading the posterior fixation system. Conclusion: The present study supports the potential of bioceramics as viable materials for interbody cage applications in LIF procedures. Experimental tests and clinical validation should be accompanied to further cage design optimization to enhance the safety margins of this novel bioceramic device and ensure proper clinical effectiveness.
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.