Cargando…

Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence

Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have developed over the past 50 years. During that time, there have been several paradigm shifts with respect to techniques. These techniques evolved by incorporating state‐of‐the‐art engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Costi, John J., Ledet, Eric H., O'Connell, Grace D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33778410
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1138
_version_ 1783667984033644544
author Costi, John J.
Ledet, Eric H.
O'Connell, Grace D.
author_facet Costi, John J.
Ledet, Eric H.
O'Connell, Grace D.
author_sort Costi, John J.
collection PubMed
description Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have developed over the past 50 years. During that time, there have been several paradigm shifts with respect to techniques. These techniques evolved by incorporating state‐of‐the‐art engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure‐function relationships, and the scientific method. Multiple parametric studies have focused on the effects that the experimental technique has on outcomes. As a result, testing methodologies have evolved, but there are no standard testing protocols, which makes the comparison of findings between experiments difficult and conclusions about in vivo performance challenging. In 2019, the international spine research community was surveyed to determine the consensus on spine biomechanical testing and if the consensus opinion was consistent with the scientific evidence. More than 80 responses to the survey were received. The findings of this survey confirmed that while some methods have been commonly adopted, not all are consistent with the scientific evidence. This review summarizes the scientific literature, the current consensus, and the authors' recommendations on best practices based on the compendium of available evidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7984003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79840032021-03-25 Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence Costi, John J. Ledet, Eric H. O'Connell, Grace D. JOR Spine Review Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have developed over the past 50 years. During that time, there have been several paradigm shifts with respect to techniques. These techniques evolved by incorporating state‐of‐the‐art engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure‐function relationships, and the scientific method. Multiple parametric studies have focused on the effects that the experimental technique has on outcomes. As a result, testing methodologies have evolved, but there are no standard testing protocols, which makes the comparison of findings between experiments difficult and conclusions about in vivo performance challenging. In 2019, the international spine research community was surveyed to determine the consensus on spine biomechanical testing and if the consensus opinion was consistent with the scientific evidence. More than 80 responses to the survey were received. The findings of this survey confirmed that while some methods have been commonly adopted, not all are consistent with the scientific evidence. This review summarizes the scientific literature, the current consensus, and the authors' recommendations on best practices based on the compendium of available evidence. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7984003/ /pubmed/33778410 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1138 Text en © 2021 The Authors. JOR Spine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Costi, John J.
Ledet, Eric H.
O'Connell, Grace D.
Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence
title Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence
title_full Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence
title_fullStr Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence
title_full_unstemmed Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence
title_short Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence
title_sort spine biomechanical testing methodologies: the controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33778410
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1138
work_keys_str_mv AT costijohnj spinebiomechanicaltestingmethodologiesthecontroversyofconsensusvsscientificevidence
AT ledeterich spinebiomechanicaltestingmethodologiesthecontroversyofconsensusvsscientificevidence
AT oconnellgraced spinebiomechanicaltestingmethodologiesthecontroversyofconsensusvsscientificevidence