Cargando…

A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation

BACKGROUND: Spinal systems that are currently available for correction of spinal deformities or degeneration such as lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease use components manufactured from stainless steel or titanium and typically comprise two spinal rods with associated connection de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kok, Dennis, Firkins, Paul John, Wapstra, Frits H, Veldhuizen, Albert G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-269
_version_ 1782296877335576576
author Kok, Dennis
Firkins, Paul John
Wapstra, Frits H
Veldhuizen, Albert G
author_facet Kok, Dennis
Firkins, Paul John
Wapstra, Frits H
Veldhuizen, Albert G
author_sort Kok, Dennis
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Spinal systems that are currently available for correction of spinal deformities or degeneration such as lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease use components manufactured from stainless steel or titanium and typically comprise two spinal rods with associated connection devices (for example: DePuy Spines Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System). The Memory Metal Spinal System of this study consists of a single square spinal rod made of a nickel titanium alloy (Nitinol) used in conjunction with connecting transverse bridges and pedicle screws made of Ti-alloy. Nitinol is best known for its shape memory effect, but is also characterized by its higher flexibility when compared to either stainless steel or titanium. A higher fusion rate with less degeneration of adjacent segments may result because of the elastic properties of the memory metal. In addition, the use of a single, unilateral rod may be of great value for a TLIF procedure. Our objective is to evaluate the mechanical properties of the new Memory Metal Spinal System compared to the Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System. METHODS: An in-vitro mechanical evaluation of the lumbar Memory Metal Spinal System was conducted. The test protocol followed ASTM Standard F1717-96, “Standard Test Methods for Static and Fatigue for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Corpectomy Model.” 1. Static axial testing in a load to failure mode in compression bending, 2. Static testing in a load to failure mode in torsion, 3. Cyclical testing to estimate the maximum run out load value at 5.0 x 10^6 cycles. RESULTS: In the biomechanical testing for static axial compression bending there was no statistical difference between the 2% yield strength and the stiffness of the two types of spinal constructs. In axial compression bending fatigue testing, the Memory Metal Spinal System construct showed a 50% increase in fatigue life compared to the Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System. In static torsional testing the Memory Metal Spinal System constructs showed an average 220% increase in torsional yield strength, and an average 30% increase in torsional stiffness. CONCLUSIONS: The in-vitro mechanical evaluation of the lumbar Memory Metal Spinal System showed good results when compared to a currently available spinal implant system. Throughout testing, the Memory Metal Spinal System showed no failures in static and dynamic fatigue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3871762
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38717622013-12-25 A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation Kok, Dennis Firkins, Paul John Wapstra, Frits H Veldhuizen, Albert G BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Spinal systems that are currently available for correction of spinal deformities or degeneration such as lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease use components manufactured from stainless steel or titanium and typically comprise two spinal rods with associated connection devices (for example: DePuy Spines Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System). The Memory Metal Spinal System of this study consists of a single square spinal rod made of a nickel titanium alloy (Nitinol) used in conjunction with connecting transverse bridges and pedicle screws made of Ti-alloy. Nitinol is best known for its shape memory effect, but is also characterized by its higher flexibility when compared to either stainless steel or titanium. A higher fusion rate with less degeneration of adjacent segments may result because of the elastic properties of the memory metal. In addition, the use of a single, unilateral rod may be of great value for a TLIF procedure. Our objective is to evaluate the mechanical properties of the new Memory Metal Spinal System compared to the Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System. METHODS: An in-vitro mechanical evaluation of the lumbar Memory Metal Spinal System was conducted. The test protocol followed ASTM Standard F1717-96, “Standard Test Methods for Static and Fatigue for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Corpectomy Model.” 1. Static axial testing in a load to failure mode in compression bending, 2. Static testing in a load to failure mode in torsion, 3. Cyclical testing to estimate the maximum run out load value at 5.0 x 10^6 cycles. RESULTS: In the biomechanical testing for static axial compression bending there was no statistical difference between the 2% yield strength and the stiffness of the two types of spinal constructs. In axial compression bending fatigue testing, the Memory Metal Spinal System construct showed a 50% increase in fatigue life compared to the Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System. In static torsional testing the Memory Metal Spinal System constructs showed an average 220% increase in torsional yield strength, and an average 30% increase in torsional stiffness. CONCLUSIONS: The in-vitro mechanical evaluation of the lumbar Memory Metal Spinal System showed good results when compared to a currently available spinal implant system. Throughout testing, the Memory Metal Spinal System showed no failures in static and dynamic fatigue. BioMed Central 2013-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3871762/ /pubmed/24047109 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-269 Text en Copyright © 2013 Kok et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kok, Dennis
Firkins, Paul John
Wapstra, Frits H
Veldhuizen, Albert G
A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation
title A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation
title_full A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation
title_fullStr A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation
title_full_unstemmed A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation
title_short A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation
title_sort new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24047109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-269
work_keys_str_mv AT kokdennis anewlumbarposteriorfixationsystemthememorymetalspinalsystemaninvitromechanicalevaluation
AT firkinspauljohn anewlumbarposteriorfixationsystemthememorymetalspinalsystemaninvitromechanicalevaluation
AT wapstrafritsh anewlumbarposteriorfixationsystemthememorymetalspinalsystemaninvitromechanicalevaluation
AT veldhuizenalbertg anewlumbarposteriorfixationsystemthememorymetalspinalsystemaninvitromechanicalevaluation
AT kokdennis newlumbarposteriorfixationsystemthememorymetalspinalsystemaninvitromechanicalevaluation
AT firkinspauljohn newlumbarposteriorfixationsystemthememorymetalspinalsystemaninvitromechanicalevaluation
AT wapstrafritsh newlumbarposteriorfixationsystemthememorymetalspinalsystemaninvitromechanicalevaluation
AT veldhuizenalbertg newlumbarposteriorfixationsystemthememorymetalspinalsystemaninvitromechanicalevaluation