In this section
Based at 51³Ô¹ÏÍø's White City Campus, we are a research group with a focus on Spine Biomechanics. We use a range of tools to better understanding in the areas of spinal injury, spinal deformity and spinal surgery.
Our lab has state-of-the-art ex vivo testing capabilities, including bespoke testing rigs, a 6 DOF robot arm, a C-arm, pressure needles, water baths, and high-speed X-ray. We also have access to advanced imaging technologies, including micro-CT, 9.4T MRI, and microscopy.
We use novel computational approaches (finite element modelling, msk modelling, digital volume correlation (DVC), machine learning) to develop workflows to provide clinicians with information to inform patient treatment strategies, to better predict risk of injury, and to assess scoliosis brace designs.
We collaborate globally, with ongoing projects with colleagues in New Zealand, USA, Portugal, South Africa, Germany, Australia, Sri Lanka and India.
You can explore our recent publications below.
@article{Raftery:2026:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2026.106792,
author = {Raftery, KA and Levy, H and Adamson, L and Magera, C and Freedman, B and Newell, N},
doi = {10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2026.106792},
journal = {Clinical Biomechanics},
title = {Three-dimensional analysis of interbody cage-apophyseal ring contact to predict endplate subsidence following transforaminal interbody fusion},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2026.106792},
volume = {134},
year = {2026}
}
TY - JOUR
AB - BackgroundThere is a higher risk of subsidence following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) relative to other approaches. Decreased subsidence risk is associated with anterior cage placement, speculated to be because of increased apophyseal ring contact. However, this hypothesis is largely based on in vitro evidence and, to date, has not been investigated in a clinical cohort.MethodsPre-operative and post-operative computed tomography (CT) images from 42 TLIF patients were used to segment the endplate and cages. The apophyseal ring boundary was manually landmarked for each endplate. The pre-operative endplates were rigidly registered with the post-operative cage position, and an iterative closest point approach was used to calculate the contact area between the cage, apophyseal ring, and endplate. Subsidence was categorised based on severity (No Subsidence: <2 mm; Moderate Subsidence: 2-4 mm; Severe Subsidence: ≥4 mm) from post-operative CT.FindingsApophyseal ring contact was significantly lower in both Moderate and Severe Subsidence, relative to No Subsidence (Moderate: −19.6 ± 7.0%; Severe: −21.5 ± 6.5%; P < 0.05), and negatively correlated with subsidence depth (P < 0.05). Injury risk analysis demonstrated that a 50% subsidence risk was associated with 45.7% (38.4–53.6%) apophyseal ring contact. Suprajacent endplate apophyseal ring contact, but not subjacent, was significantly predictive of subsidence at the respective endplate (P < 0.05).InterpretationThe risk of subsidence in TLIF patients can be mitigated by ensuring that at least half of the interbody cage surface area is in contact with the peripheral endplate rim, particularly at the endplate superior to the cage.
AU - Raftery,KA
AU - Levy,H
AU - Adamson,L
AU - Magera,C
AU - Freedman,B
AU - Newell,N
DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2026.106792
PY - 2026///
SN - 0268-0033
TI - Three-dimensional analysis of interbody cage-apophyseal ring contact to predict endplate subsidence following transforaminal interbody fusion
T2 - Clinical Biomechanics
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2026.106792
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2026.106792
VL - 134
ER -