The Current Testing Protocols for Biomechanical Evaluation of Lumbar Spinal Implants in Laboratory Setting: A Review of the Literature

In vitro biomechanical investigations have become a routinely employed technique to explore new lumbar instrumentation. One of the most important advantages of such investigations is the low risk present when compared to clinical trials. However, the best use of any experimental data can be made when standard testing protocols are adopted by investigators, thus allowing comparisons among studies. Experimental variables, such as the length of the specimen, operative level, type of loading (e.g., dynamic versus quasistatic), magnitude, and rate of load applied, are among the most common variables controlled during spinal biomechanical testing. Although important efforts have been made to standardize these protocols, high variability can be found in the current literature. The aim of this investigation was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify the current trends in the protocols reported for the evaluation of new lumbar spinal implants under laboratory setting

Multi Segment Finite Element Analysis of the Lumbar Spine

Finite element analysis of the spine has become popular over the past several decades. However, the current studies often use minimal specimens for modeling. The purpose of this study was to validate and analyze multiple finite element models with data from in vivo experiments and other finite element studies before future investigations. This study developed eight (8) lumbar spine (L2-L5) finite element models followed by finite element analysis of simulated bending in the six (6) basic motions. CT scans were obtained from four (4) males and four (4) females between the ages of forty-four (44) and seventy-three (73) years old. The study preprocessed the CT scans and built finite element models to simulate the motions of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with preloads/torques that emulate physiological loading. The study analyzed vertebral rotation, facet forces, and intradiscal pressure in all loading directions and validated the data with other finite element analyses and in vivo experimental measurements in the literature. The study validated the intervertebral rotation, intradiscal pressure, and facet force results with results from the literature. The results of this study are consistent with other computation studies and include recommendations for future studies

Bone fusion system

A method and system for performing bone fusion and/or securing one or more bones, such as adjacent vertebra, are disclosed. The screws include a threaded tip connected to a main shaft and a threaded outer sleeve that rotates relative to the outer shaft until locked down. Independent rotation of the threaded outer sleeve relative to the threaded distal tip allows compression or distraction to modify the gap between the vertebral bodies. The screws are passed from the inferior to superior vertebra or superior to inferior, for example, through a trans-pedicular route to avoid neurological compromise. At the same time, the path of screw insertion is oriented to reach superior or inferior vertebra. An intervertebral cage of the system is configured for lateral expansion from a nearly straight configuration to form a large footprint in the disc space. The screws and cage may be combined for improved fixation with minimal invasiveness

Bone fusion systen

A method and system for performing bone fusion and/or securing one or more bones, such as adjacent vertebra, are disclosed. The screws include a threaded tip connected to a main shaft and a threaded outer sleeve that rotates relative to the outer shaft until locked down. Independent rotation of the threaded outer sleeve relative to the threaded distal tip allows compression or distraction to modify the gap between the vertebral bodies. The screws are passed from the inferior to superior vertebra or superior to inferior, for example, through a transpedicular route to avoid neurological compromise. At the same time, the path of screw insertion is oriented to reach superior or inferior vertebra. An intervertebral cage of the system is configured for lateral expansion from a nearly straight configuration to form a large footprint in the disc space. The screws and cage may be combined for improved fixation with minimal invasiveness

Expandable intervertebral cage

A method and system for performing bone fusion and/or securing one or more bones, such as adjacent vertebra, are disclosed

Expandable intervertebral cage

A method and system for performing bone fusion and/or securing one or more bones, such as adjacent vertebra, are disclosed

Expandable intervertebral cage

A method and system for performing bone fusion and/or securing one or more bones, such as adjacent vertebra, are disclosed

In Vitro Evaluation of a Lateral Expandable Cage and its Comparison with a Static Device for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Biomechanical Investigation

Object: Through in vitro biomechanical testing, the authors compared the performance of a vertically expandable lateral lumbar interbody cage (EC) under two different torque-controlled expansions (1.5 and 3.0 Nm) and with respect to an equivalent lateral lumbar static cage (SC) with and without pedicle screw fixation. Methods: Eleven cadaveric human L2–3 segments were evaluated under the following conditions: 1) intact; 2) discectomy; 3) EC under 1.50 Nm of torque expansion (EC-1.5Nm); 4) EC under 3.00 Nm of torque expansion (EC-3.0Nm); 5) SC; and 6) SC with a bilateral pedicle screw system (SC+BPSS). Load-displacement behavior was evaluated for each condition using a combination of 100 N of axial preload and 7.5 Nm of torque in flexion and extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Range of motion (ROM), neutral zone stiffness (NZS), and elastic zone stiffness (EZS) were statistically compared among conditions using post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank comparisons after Friedman tests, with a significance level of 0.05. Additionally, any cage height difference between interbody devices was evaluated. When radiographic subsidence was observed, the specimen\u27s data were not considered for the analysis. Results: The final cage height in the EC-1.5Nm condition (12.1 ± 0.9 mm) was smaller (p \u3c 0.001) than that in the EC-3.0Nm (13.9 ± 1.1 mm) and SC (13.4 ± 0.8 mm) conditions. All instrumentation reduced (p \u3c 0.01) ROM with respect to the injury and increased (p ≤ 0.01) NZS in flexion, extension, and LB as well as EZS in flexion, LB, and AR. When comparing the torque expansions, the EC-3.0Nm condition had smaller (p \u3c 0.01) FE and AR ROM and greater (p ≤ 0.04) flexion NZS, extension EZS, and AR EZS. The SC condition performed equivalently (p ≥ 0.10) to both EC conditions in terms of ROM, NZS, and EZS, except for EZS in AR, in which a marginal (p = 0.05) difference was observed with respect to the EC-3.0Nm condition. The SC+BPSS was the most rigid construct in terms of ROM and stiffness, except for 1) LB ROM, in which it was comparable (p = 0.08) with that of the EC-1.5Nm condition; 2) AR NZS, in which it was comparable (p \u3e 0.66, Friedman test) with that of all other constructs; and 3) AR EZS, in which it was comparable with that of the EC-1.5Nm (p = 0.56) and SC (p = 0.08) conditions. Conclusions: A 3.0-Nm torque expansion of a lateral interbody cage provides greater immediate stability in FE and AR than a 1.5-Nm torque expansion. Moreover, the expandable device provides stability comparable with that of an equivalent (in size, shape, and bone-interface material) SC. Specifically, the SC+BPSS construct was the most stable in FE motion. Even though an EC may seem a better option given the minimal tissue disruption during its implantation, there may be a greater chance of endplate collapse by over-distracting the disc space because of the minimal haptic feedback from the expansion

The Current Testing Protocols for Biomechanical Evaluation of Lumbar Spinal Implants in Laboratory Setting: A Review of the Literature

In vitro biomechanical investigations have become a routinely employed technique to explore new lumbar instrumentation. One of the most important advantages of such investigations is the low risk present when compared to clinical trials. However, the best use of any experimental data can be made when standard testing protocols are adopted by investigators, thus allowing comparisons among studies. Experimental variables, such as the length of the specimen, operative level, type of loading (e.g., dynamic versus quasistatic), magnitude, and rate of load applied, are among the most common variables controlled during spinal biomechanical testing. Although important efforts have been made to standardize these protocols, high variability can be found in the current literature. The aim of this investigation was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify the current trends in the protocols reported for the evaluation of new lumbar spinal implants under laboratory setting

The Current Testing Protocols for Biomechanical Evaluation of Lumbar Spinal Implants in Laboratory Setting: A Review of the Literature

In vitro biomechanical investigations have become a routinely employed technique to explore new lumbar instrumentation. One of the most important advantages of such investigations is the low risk present when compared to clinical trials. However, the best use of any experimental data can be made when standard testing protocols are adopted by investigators, thus allowing comparisons among studies. Experimental variables, such as the length of the specimen, operative level, type of loading (e.g., dynamic versus quasistatic), magnitude, and rate of load applied, are among the most common variables controlled during spinal biomechanical testing. Although important efforts have been made to standardize these protocols, high variability can be found in the current literature. The aim of this investigation was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify the current trends in the protocols reported for the evaluation of new lumbar spinal implants under laboratory setting