Table 3 Comparison of the current study results with relevant studies
From: Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct
Author/Publication | Applied torque [N · m] | Test conditions | FE ROM [% Intact] | LB ROM [% Intact] | AR ROM [% Intact] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Current study | ±10 | Lateral cage alone | 48.5% | 31.4% | 81.3% |
Lateral cage and plate | 22.2% | 11.9% | 33.9% | ||
Cappuccino et al., 2010 [[26]] | ±7.5 | XLIF cage alone | 31.6% | 32.5% | 69.4% |
XLIF + lateral plate | 32.5% | 15.9% | 53.4% | ||
Bess et al., 2008 [[25]] | ±5 | XLIF cage alone | 45.8% | 41.8% | 66.3% |
XLIF + lateral plate | 40.0% | 24.2% | 50.7% | ||
Le Huec et al., 2002 [[28]] | ±7 | LLIF cage alone | 71.3% | 88.5% | 107.7% |
LLIF cage + lateral plate | 40.3% | 27.3% | 45.2% | ||
Kim et al., 2005 [[27]] | ±7.5 | LLIF graft alone | 75.2% | 96.9% | 71.6% |
LLIF + lateral plate | 52.1% | 37.9% | 41.3% |