Comparison of two interbody fusion cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion in a cadaveric model

Although the Brantigan cage and Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) cage have different geometrical characteristics, clinical observations suggest that they are equally effective in restoring disc height and stability across the involved spinal segments. This study was designed to compare their performance as posterior lumbar interbody fusion devices at two levels in fresh ligamentous cadaver lumbar spines (L2–S1). After mounting in a testing frame, the three-dimensional load-displacement behaviour of each vertebra was quantified using the Selspot II Motion Measurement System for; the intact state, posterior decompression, and stabilisation, using a pair of Brantigan or BAK cages across L4–S1, additional stabilisation using Isola spinal instrumentation across L4–S1, and cyclic loading in flexion/extension. In the “cage-only” state, the Brantigan cage did not restore the stability in right axial rotation, whereas the BAK cage not only restored stability in all six directions but also improved lateral bending. After implanting the posterior instrumentation, both groups exhibited similar stability, and cyclic loading did not alter this. Although the Brantigan cage appears less effective than the BAK cage, implantation of posterior instrumentation significantly improves stability and reduces the differences between them. This underscores the need to use posterior instrumentation to achieve a higher initial stability.