In this section
Based at Imperial'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{Wang:2025,
author = {Wang, AP and Slater, T and Raftery, KA and Masouros, SD and Levy, H and Freedman, BA and Newell, N},
journal = {European Spine Journal},
title = {Endplate preparation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: does the amount of endplate removed affect cage subsidence risk?},
year = {2025}
}
TY - JOUR
AB - Purpose: Subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common complication that may be influenced by the degree of endplate removal prior to cage insertion. The optimal degree of endplate removal remains unclear; therefore, we performed a series of ex vivo experiments to elucidate the relationship between the aggressiveness of endplate preparation and subsidence risk.Methods: Human cadaveric subaxial cervical endplates were partially decorticated either conservatively (n = 10) or aggressively (n = 9). The degree of endplate removal was quantified using microCT. Subsidence was modelled by measuring the strength and stiffness of each specimen when an interbody cage was axially compressed into the endplate.Results: Conservative endplate preparation resulted in less endplate removal than aggressive endplate preparation (mass: 150 vs 301mg, p < 0.001; volume: 47 vs 88mm3, p = 0.01; thickness: 0.02 vs 0.16mm, p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to endplate strength (2.04 vs 2.04kN, p = 0.99) or stiffness (2.38 vs 2.41kN/mm, p = 0.89). Bone mineral density (BMD) was similar between the two groups (271.6 vs 271.9mg/cm3, p = 0.98) but positively correlated with endplate strength (effect size 0.68, p = 0.001).Conclusions: When performing partial cervical endplate decortication, the degree of bony endplate removal did not significantly predict endplate integrity during ex vivo compression testing, but greater BMD was associated with increased strength. The degree of endplate removal should be based on individual patient factors and intraoperative findings to achieve the ideal cage-endplate interface.
AU - Wang,AP
AU - Slater,T
AU - Raftery,KA
AU - Masouros,SD
AU - Levy,H
AU - Freedman,BA
AU - Newell,N
PY - 2025///
SN - 0940-6719
TI - Endplate preparation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: does the amount of endplate removed affect cage subsidence risk?
T2 - European Spine Journal
ER -