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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |