## 3 Results  
Tables 2 and 3 and Figure 2 show that, in comparison to the INT model, the ROM decreased at the L2-L3 and L3-L4 segments in all instrumented (AwC-TSF, AwC-TSF-S and TSF) models in flexion, while the ROM of the AwC model was similar to the INT model at each motion segment. The ROM of the instrumented models was similar in flexion, extension, lateral bending and torsion, and the maximum ROM (over 200% increase over INT) occurred at L4-L5 in extension. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **L1–L2** & **L2–L3** & **L3–L4** & **L4–L5** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **TOTAL** \\ **ROM** \\ \end{tabular} & **Torque** & **Stiffness** \\ \cline{2-9}  & & & & **Degree** & & & **Nm** & **Nm/degree** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Flexion**} & INT & 3.93 & 3.94 & 3.89 & 5.33 & 17.09 & 6.90 & 0.40 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC & 3.97 & 3.86 & 3.81 & 5.38 & 17.03 & 6.93 & 0.41 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC-TSF & 6.17 & 1.62 & 1.26 & 7.98 & 17.04 & 12.50 & 0.73 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC-TSF-S & 6.30 & 1.53 & 1.18 & 8.06 & 17.07 & 13.20 & 0.77 \\ \cline{2-9}  & TSF & 6.14 & 1.68 & 1.33 & 7.86 & 17.01 & 11.74 & 0.69 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Extension**} & INT & 2.80 & 2.39 & 2.25 & 2.21 & 9.65 & 6.90 & 0.71 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC & 2.80 & 2.39 & 2.25 & 2.21 & 9.65 & 6.90 & 0.71 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC-TSF & 3.77 & 0.78 & 0.57 & 4.53 & 9.65 & 10.85 & 1.12 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC-TSF-S & 3.87 & 0.74 & 0.54 & 4.55 & 9.70 & 11.70 & 1.21 \\ \cline{2-9}  & TSF & 3.77 & 0.81 & 0.60 & 4.44 & 9.61 & 10.56 & 1.10 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Lateral**} & INT & 3.30 & 3.17 & 2.98 & 2.88 & 12.33 & 5.10 & 0.41 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC & 3.27 & 3.20 & 3.01 & 2.85 & 12.33 & 5.11 & 0.41 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC-TSF & 5.08 & 0.96 & 0.70 & 5.33 & 12.08 & 7.87 & 0.65 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC-TSF-S & 5.16 & 0.92 & 0.67 & 5.36 & 12.11 & 8.40 & 0.69 \\ \cline{2-9}  & TSF & 5.06 & 0.99 & 0.74 & 5.28 & 12.06 & 7.44 & 0.62 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Torsion**} & INT & 1.95 & 2.21 & 2.59 & 3.63 & 10.38 & 9.30 & 0.90 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC & 1.94 & 2.22 & 2.60 & 3.61 & 10.38 & 9.32 & 0.90 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC-TSF & 2.27 & 1.65 & 2.19 & 4.26 & 10.37 & 12.17 & 1.17 \\ \cline{2-9}  & AwC-TSF-S & 2.29 & 1.59 & 2.11 & 4.35 & 10.34 & 13.20 & 1.28 \\ \cline{2-9}  & TSF & 2.21 & 1.70 & 2.29 & 4.16 & 10.36 & 11.71 & 1.13 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Range of motion (ROM) of all motion segments in five finite element (FE) models. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Maximum Disc von-Mises Stress (MPa)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Maximum von Mises Stress of Endplate (kPa)**} \\ \hline  & & & L1-L2 & L2-L3 & L3-L4 & L4-L5 & L1 bottom & L2 top & L2 bottom & L3 top & L3 bottom & L4 top & L4 bottom & L5 top \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{values were normalized with respect to} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{values were normalized with respect to INT.} \\  & INT & 892 & 769 & 649 & 766 & 5850 & 4760 & 5800 & 4020 & 4900 & 4190 & 5850 & 5580 \\  & AwC & 102\% & 99\% & 100\% & 105\% & 100\% & 101\% & 103\% & 103\% & 104\% & 103\% & 102\% & 100\% \\ Fleion & AwC-TSF & 157\% & 84\% & 84\% & 172\% & 183\% & 190\% & 86\% & 74\% & 77\% & 130\% & 189\% & 232\% \\  & AwC-TSF-S & 158\% & 90\% & 87\% & 174\% & 186\% &  
Figure 3 shows that the stiffness of the instrumented models (AwC-TSF, AwC-TSF-S and TSF) was similar under all motions, and increased considerably at the L2-L4 segments, with the stiffness of the instrumented models being approximately nine times greater than the INT model when under extension and lateral bending. The stiffness of the cement augmentation model was similar to the INT model in all motions. Figure 2: (**a**) Range of motion of each motion segment in all implanted models, all values were normalized with respect to intact. (**b**) Method to determining the ROM (\(\theta_{1}\) represent the ROM angle of L2-L3, \(\theta_{2}\) represent the ROM angle of L3-L4); the cyan contour in solid line represent the lumbar segments after motion.