Denis J DiAngelo1, Kevin T Foley. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee 38163, USA.
Abstract
OBJECT: An experimental study was performed to determine the biomechanical end-mounting configurations that replicate in vivo physiological motion of the cervical spine in a multiple-level human cadaveric model. The vertebral motion response for the modified testing protocol was compared to in vivo motion data and traditional pure-moment testing methods. METHODS: Biomechanical tests were performed on fresh human cadaveric cervical spines (C2-T1) mounted in a programmable testing apparatus. Three different end-mounting conditions were studied: pinned-pinned, pinned-fixed, and translational/pinned-fixed. The motion response of the individual segmental vertebral rotations was statistically compared using one-way analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests (p < 0.05 unless otherwise stated) to determine differences in the motion responses for different testing methods. CONCLUSIONS: A translational/pinned-fixed mounting configuration induced a bending-moment distribution across the cervical spine, resulting in a motion response that closely matched the in vivo case. In contrast, application of pure-moment loading did not reproduce the physiological response and is less suitable for studying disc arthroplasty and nonfusion devices.
OBJECT: An experimental study was performed to determine the biomechanical end-mounting configurations that replicate in vivo physiological motion of the cervical spine in a multiple-level human cadaveric model. The vertebral motion response for the modified testing protocol was compared to in vivo motion data and traditional pure-moment testing methods. METHODS: Biomechanical tests were performed on fresh human cadaveric cervical spines (C2-T1) mounted in a programmable testing apparatus. Three different end-mounting conditions were studied: pinned-pinned, pinned-fixed, and translational/pinned-fixed. The motion response of the individual segmental vertebral rotations was statistically compared using one-way analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests (p < 0.05 unless otherwise stated) to determine differences in the motion responses for different testing methods. CONCLUSIONS: A translational/pinned-fixed mounting configuration induced a bending-moment distribution across the cervical spine, resulting in a motion response that closely matched the in vivo case. In contrast, application of pure-moment loading did not reproduce the physiological response and is less suitable for studying disc arthroplasty and nonfusion devices.
Authors: A Nabhan; F Ahlhelm; T Pitzen; W I Steudel; J Jung; K Shariat; O Steimer; F Bachelier; D Pape Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2006-11-14 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Giuseppe M V Barbagallo; Roberto Assietti; Leonardo Corbino; Giuseppe Olindo; Pietro V Foti; Vittorio Russo; Vincenzo Albanese Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Heiko Koller; Jeremy Reynolds; Juliane Zenner; Rosemarie Forstner; Axel Hempfing; Iris Maislinger; Klaus Kolb; Mark Tauber; Herbert Resch; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 3.134