This paper is on the biomechanical influence of cervical spine graft size in a human cadaver model, simulating a unilateral distractive-flexion (DF) injury. It should be noted that DF injuries are common, and controversy exists on the various surgical options available. In general, posterior rigid fixation gives a biomechanically superior construct than anterior fixation. However, anterior discectomy and fusion with plating gives reasonably effective stabilization, and the literature supports the anterior approach, particularly in the case of herniated disc associated with DF injury. There are many factors that influence the overall construct stability such as injury severity, host factors including osteoporosis and spondylosis, rigidity of the plate, etc. Therefore, the findings of this study cannot be applied to DF injuries with bilateral facet dislocation and facet fractures, which are more severe injuries. The average age of the cadavers used in this paper is 76 years, but the majority of DF injuries occur in the younger patients. Anterior fixation in patients with osteoporosis is generally less stable, and therefore, many surgeons recommend posterior fixation or a combined anterior and posterior fixation in these patients. The authors have chosen a dynamic plating system rather than a rigid plating system. The literature cites no significant difference between static and dynamic plates in patients with single-level degenerative disc disease, but there is no equivalent information on DF injury patients. To enhance the biomechanical stability of the construct, many surgeons recommend a more rigid static plating system in DF injuries. The findings of this study might have been different if the authors had chosen a rigid static plating system. In other words, a rigid static plating system could override the minor biomechanical influence by the graft size. Based on the results of this study, the authors have concluded that a larger graft is better against flexion-extension, and a smaller graft is better against lateral bending and axial rotation loads. This information is helpful to guide the patients in the postoperative care, including type and duration of external bracing. The authors also mentioned the potential danger of over-distraction, including overstretching of neural and soft tissue structures and increased stresses between the end plate and graft. My general recommendation for choosing the graft size is to average the disc height above and below in DF injury cases to avoid both over-sizing and under-sizing. On the other hand, for degenerative cases, a 2- to 3- mm distraction from the preoperative disc height gives increased foraminal area without causing over-distraction. Under-sizing might give greater stability against rotation and lateral bending, but flexion-extension moments are more important for DF injury cases. The authors should be congratulated for their contribution in shedding light on the biomechanical influence of interbody graft size in a DF injury model, but the readers should understand several other variables such as injury severity, host factors, and surgical techniques that influence the biomechanical construct and should make clinical application accordingly.