The objective of the current study was to develop an in vitro testing protocol to evaluate semi-rigid pedicle screw devices. A corpectomy model protocol exists to evaluate rigid spinal implants; however, semi-rigid devices are contraindicated for this condition. This paper describes a technique that simulates more closely the conditions a semi-rigid device would see in vivo. Finally, the new testing protocol is used to evaluate the DDS® pedicle screw-cable system. Benefits and shortcomings of the new protocol are discussed.

1.
Geiger, J. M., and Melkerson, M. N., “Static and dynamic test method for spinal implant assemblies in a corpectomy model,” ASTM Draft F-04.35.1, June 14, 1994.
2.
Gertzbein
S. D.
,
Betz
R.
,
Clements
D.
,
Errico
T.
,
Hammerberg
K.
,
Robbins
S.
,
Sheperd
E.
,
Weber
A.
,
Kerina
M.
,
Albin
J.
,
Wolk
D.
, and
Ensor
K.
, “
Semirigid instrumentation in the management of lumber spinal conditions combined with circumferential fusion; a multicenter study
,”
Spine
, Vol.
21
,
1996
, pp.
1918
1926
.
3.
Goel, V. K., Hoffman, H. E., and Pfeiffer, M., “Evaluation of the DDS® fixation system,” 1995 (personal communication).
4.
Grevitt
M. P.
,
Gardner
A. D. H.
,
Spilsbury
J.
,
Shackleford
I. M.
,
Baskerville
R.
,
Pursell
L. M.
,
Hassaan
A.
, and
Mulholland
R. C.
, “
The Graf stabilisation system: early results in 50 patients
,”
Eur. Spine J.
, Vol.
4
,
1995
, pp.
169
175
.
5.
Yamagata
M.
,
Kitahara
H.
,
Minami
S.
,
Takahashi
K.
,
Isobe
K.
,
Moriya
H.
, and
Tamaki
T.
, “
Mechanical stability of the pedicle screw fixation systems for the lumbar spine
,”
Spine
, Vol.
17
,
1992
, pp.
S51–S54
S51–S54
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.