Skip to Main Content
Skip Nav Destination
ASTM Selected Technical Papers
Spinal Implants: Are We Evaluating Them Appropriately?Available to Purchase
By
MN Melkerson, M.S.
MN Melkerson, M.S.
1
Symposium chairman and co-editor
;
Food Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Device Evaluation
?
9200 Corporate Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850
Search for other works by this author on:
JS Kirkpatrick, M.D.
JS Kirkpatrick, M.D.
2
Symposium co-chairman and co-editor
;
University of Alabama, Birmingham and Birmingham Veterans Administration Medical Center
?
940 Faculty Office Tower 510 20th Street South Birmingham, Alabama 35294
Search for other works by this author on:
S Griffith, Ph.D.
S Griffith, Ph.D.
3
Symposium co-chairman and co-editor
;
Centerpulse Spine-Tech Division
?
7375 Bush Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55439
Search for other works by this author on:
ISBN-10:
0-8031-3463-0
ISBN:
978-0-8031-3463-8
No. of Pages:
246
Publisher:
ASTM International
Publication date:
2003

Mechanical testing of spinal instrumentation on cadaveric spine segments can be challenging. In this study, a mechanical analogue lumbar spine model was developed to be similar in rigidity to that of cadaveric spine segments. Three models of an adult human lumbar spine were built from composite vertebrae, ligaments and discs created individually to reproduce the nonlinear mechanical properties of human components. These models and three calf lumbar spines were loaded in a biaxial mechanical test system in axial compression, torsion, right and left lateral bending, flexion and extension. Rigidities were calculated in the secondary linear load-displacement region. Load-displacement behavior was nonlinear for both analogue and calf spines. There was good reproducibility between the models. Average axial rigidity of the analogue spines was 86 N/mm versus 231 N/mm for the calf spines, possibly due to the calf flat-back. In the remaining loading modes, the analogue spine was 26–65% more rigid than young calf spines. Comparisons to human cadaveric spine segments are underway.

1.
Bernhardt
M.
, “
Normal Spinal Anatomy: Normal Sagittal Plane Alignment
,”
The Textbook of Spinal Surgery
,
Philadelphia
,
JB Lippincott
,
1997
.
2.
Cunningham
B. W.
,
Yoshihisa
K.
,
McNulty
P. S.
,
Cappuccino
A.
,
McAfee
P. C.
, “
The Effect of Spinal Destabilization and Instrumentation on Lumbar Intradiscal Pressure: An In Vitro Biomechanical Analysis
,”
Spine
, Vol.
22
,
1997
, p. 2663.
3.
Dick
J. C.
,
Zdeblick
T. A.
,
Bartel
B. D.
,
Kunz
D. N.
, “
Mechanical evaluation of cross-link designs in rigid pedicle screw systems
,”
Spine
, Vol.
22
,
1997
, p. 4.
4.
Glazer
PA
,
Colliou
O
,
Klish
SM
,
Bradfore
DS
,
Bueff
HU
,
Lotz
JC
:
Biomechanical analysis of multilevel fixation methods in the lumbar spine
.
Spine
, Vol.
22
,
1997
p. 2.
5.
Goel
V. K.
,
Voo
L M.
,
Weinstein
J. N.
,
Liu
Y. K.
,
Okuma
T
,
Njus
G.O.
, “
Response of the ligamentous lumbar spine to cyclic bending loads
,”
Spine
, Vol.
13
, No.
3
,
1988
, pp. 294–300.
6.
Goel
V. K.
,
Weinstein
J. N.
, “
Biomechanics of the Spine: Clinical and Surgical Perspective
,”
CRC Press, Inc.
,
Boca Raton, FL
,
1990
.
7.
Hirsch
C.
, “
The reaction of intervertebral discs to compression forces
.”
J Bone Joint Surg
, Vol.
37A
,
1955
, p. 118.
8.
Kornblatt
M. D.
,
Casey
M. P.
,
Jacobs
R. R.
, “
Internal fixation in lumbosacral spine fusion
,”
Clin Orthop
, Vol.
203
,
1986
, pp. 141–150.
9.
Lucas
G. L.
,
Cooke
F. W.
,
Friis
E A.
,
A Primer of Biomechanics
,
New York
,
Springer
,
1999
.
10.
Markolf
K. L.
,
Morris
J. M
, “
The structural components of the intervertebral disc
,”
J. Bone Joint Surg
, Vol.
56A
,
1974
, p. 675.
11.
Szivek
J. A.
,
Thomas
M.
,
Benjamin
J. B.
, “
Characterization of a synthetic foam as a model for human cancellous bone
,”
J Appl Biomater
, Vol.
4
, No.
3
,
1993
, pp. 269–272.
12.
White
A. A.
,
Panjabi
M M.
,
Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine
, 2nd Ed.,
J. B. Lippincott
,
Philadelphia, PA
,
1990
.
13.
Wilke
H. J.
,
Kettler
A.
,
Claes
L. E.
, “
Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines?
Spine
, Vol.
22
,
1997
, p. 20.
14.
Wilke
H. J.
,
Krischak
S.
,
Claes
L E.
, “
Biomechanical comparisons of calf and human spines
,”
J Ortho Research
, Vol.
14
,
1996
, pp. 500–503.
15.
Wilke
H. J.
,
Jungkunz
B.
,
Wenger
K.
,
Claes
L. E.
, “
Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular-deformation rate, and moisture condition
,”
Anat Rec
, Vol.
251
, No.
1
,
1998
, pp. 15–19.
16.
Wilke
H. J.
,
Krischak
S.
,
Claes
L. E.
, “
Formalin fixation strongly influences biomechanical properties of the spine
,”
J Biomech
, Vol.
29
, No.
12
,
1996
, pp. 1629–1631.
17.
Wilke
H. J.
,
Krischak
S. T.
,
Wenger
K. H.
,
Claes
L. E.
, “
Load-displacement properties of the thoracolumbar calf spine: experimental results and comparison to known human data
,”
Eur Spine J
, Vol.
6
, No.
2
,
1997
, pp. 129–37.
18.
Wilke
H. J.
,
Wenger
K.
,
Claes
L.
, “
Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants
,”
Eur Spine J
, Vol.
7
, No.
2
,
1998
, pp. 148–154.
19.
Wilke
H. J.
,
Russo
G.
,
Schmitt
H.
,
Claes
L. E.
, “
A mechanical model of human spinal motion segments
,”
Biomed Tech (Berl)
, Vol.
42
, No.
11
,
1997
, pp. 327–331.
20.
http://www.sawbones.com/. Pacific Research Laboratories reported data.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this chapter.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal