Cargando…

Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct

BACKGROUND: Laboratory spinal biomechanical tests using human cadaveric or animal spines have limitations in terms of disease transmission, high sample variability, decay and fatigue during extended testing protocols. Therefore, a synthetic biomimetic spine model may be an acceptable substitute. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Tian, Ball, Jonathon R, Pelletier, Mattew H, Walsh, William R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4648844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26914748
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-014-0003-z
_version_ 1782401279981518848
author Wang, Tian
Ball, Jonathon R
Pelletier, Mattew H
Walsh, William R
author_facet Wang, Tian
Ball, Jonathon R
Pelletier, Mattew H
Walsh, William R
author_sort Wang, Tian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Laboratory spinal biomechanical tests using human cadaveric or animal spines have limitations in terms of disease transmission, high sample variability, decay and fatigue during extended testing protocols. Therefore, a synthetic biomimetic spine model may be an acceptable substitute. The goal of current study is to evaluate the properties of a synthetic biomimetic spine model; also to assess the mechanical performance of lateral plating following lateral interbody fusion. METHODS: Three L3/4 synthetic spinal motion segments were examined using a validated pure moment testing system. Moments (±7.5 Nm) were applied in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) at 1Hz for total 10000 cycles in MTS Bionix. An additional test was performed 12 hours after 10000 cycles. A ±10 Nm cycle was also performed to allow provide comparison to the literature. For implantation evaluation, each model was tested in the 4 following conditions: 1) intact, 2) lateral cage alone, 3) lateral cage and plate 4) anterior cage and plate. Results were analysed using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey’s HSD test. RESULTS: Range of motion (ROM) exhibited logarithmic growth with cycle number (increases of 16%, 37.5% and 24.3% in AR, FE and LB respectively). No signification difference (p > 0.1) was detected between 4 cycles, 10000 cycles and 12 hour rest stages. All measured parameters were comparable to that of reported cadaveric values. The ROM for a lateral cage and plate construct was not significantly different to the anterior lumbar interbody construct for FE (p = 1.00), LB (p = 0.995) and AR (p = 0.837). CONCLUSIONS: Based on anatomical and biomechanical similarities, the synthetic spine tested here provides a reasonable model to represent the human lumbar spine. Repeated testing did not dramatically alter biomechanics which may allow non-destructive testing between many different procedures and devices without the worry of carry over effects. Small intra-specimen variability and lack of biohazard makes this an attractive alternative for in vitro spine biomechanical testing. It also proved an acceptable surrogate for biomechanical testing, confirming that a lateral lumbar interbody cage and plate construct reduces ROM to a similar degree as anterior lumbar interbody cage and plate constructs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4648844
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46488442015-11-25 Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct Wang, Tian Ball, Jonathon R Pelletier, Mattew H Walsh, William R J Exp Orthop Research BACKGROUND: Laboratory spinal biomechanical tests using human cadaveric or animal spines have limitations in terms of disease transmission, high sample variability, decay and fatigue during extended testing protocols. Therefore, a synthetic biomimetic spine model may be an acceptable substitute. The goal of current study is to evaluate the properties of a synthetic biomimetic spine model; also to assess the mechanical performance of lateral plating following lateral interbody fusion. METHODS: Three L3/4 synthetic spinal motion segments were examined using a validated pure moment testing system. Moments (±7.5 Nm) were applied in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) at 1Hz for total 10000 cycles in MTS Bionix. An additional test was performed 12 hours after 10000 cycles. A ±10 Nm cycle was also performed to allow provide comparison to the literature. For implantation evaluation, each model was tested in the 4 following conditions: 1) intact, 2) lateral cage alone, 3) lateral cage and plate 4) anterior cage and plate. Results were analysed using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey’s HSD test. RESULTS: Range of motion (ROM) exhibited logarithmic growth with cycle number (increases of 16%, 37.5% and 24.3% in AR, FE and LB respectively). No signification difference (p > 0.1) was detected between 4 cycles, 10000 cycles and 12 hour rest stages. All measured parameters were comparable to that of reported cadaveric values. The ROM for a lateral cage and plate construct was not significantly different to the anterior lumbar interbody construct for FE (p = 1.00), LB (p = 0.995) and AR (p = 0.837). CONCLUSIONS: Based on anatomical and biomechanical similarities, the synthetic spine tested here provides a reasonable model to represent the human lumbar spine. Repeated testing did not dramatically alter biomechanics which may allow non-destructive testing between many different procedures and devices without the worry of carry over effects. Small intra-specimen variability and lack of biohazard makes this an attractive alternative for in vitro spine biomechanical testing. It also proved an acceptable surrogate for biomechanical testing, confirming that a lateral lumbar interbody cage and plate construct reduces ROM to a similar degree as anterior lumbar interbody cage and plate constructs. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4648844/ /pubmed/26914748 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-014-0003-z Text en © Wang et al.; licensee Springer 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research
Wang, Tian
Ball, Jonathon R
Pelletier, Mattew H
Walsh, William R
Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct
title Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct
title_full Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct
title_fullStr Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct
title_short Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct
title_sort biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4648844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26914748
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-014-0003-z
work_keys_str_mv AT wangtian biomechanicalevaluationofabiomimeticspinalconstruct
AT balljonathonr biomechanicalevaluationofabiomimeticspinalconstruct
AT pelletiermattewh biomechanicalevaluationofabiomimeticspinalconstruct
AT walshwilliamr biomechanicalevaluationofabiomimeticspinalconstruct