Study Design: In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.Objective: To compare the biomechanics of integrated anchor and blade versus traditional screw fixation techniques for interbody fusion.Methods: Fifteen cadaveric cervical spines were divided into 3 equal groups (n = 5). Each spine was tested: intact, after discectomy (simulating an injury model), interbody spacer alone (S), integrated interbody spacer (iSA), and integrated spacer with lateral mass screw and rod fixation (LMS+iS). Each treatment group included integrated spacers with either screw, anchor, or blade integrated spacers. Constructs were tested in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) under pure moments (±1.5 Nm).Results: Across all 3 planes, the following range of motion trend was observed: Injured > Intact > S > iSA > LMS+iS. In FE and LB, integrated anchor and blade significantly decreased motion compared with intact and injured conditions, before and after supplemental posterior fixation (P < .05). Comparing tested devices revealed biomechanical equivalence between screw, anchor, and blade fixation methods in all loading modes (P > .05).Conclusion: All integrated interbody devices reduced intact and injured motion; lateral mass screws and rods further stabilized the single motion segment. Comparing screw, anchor, or bladed integrated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion spacers revealed no significant differences.
View details for DOI 10.1177/2192568219833055
View details for PubMedID 31552149