Literature DB >> 15928552

Limitations of the cervical porcine spine in evaluating spinal implants in comparison with human cervical spinal segments: a biomechanical in vitro comparison of porcine and human cervical spine specimens with different instrumentation techniques.

René Schmidt1, Marcus Richter, Lutz Claes, Wolfhart Puhl, Hans-Joachim Wilke.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Porcine and human cervical spine specimens were in vitro biomechanically compared with different instrumentation techniques.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether subaxial porcine cervical spines are a valid model for implant testing in a single level corpectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Biomechanical in vitro tests are widely used for implant tests, mainly with human spine specimens. The availability of human cadavers is limited and the properties of the specimen regarding age, bone mineral density, and grade of degenerative changes is inhomogeneous.
METHODS: Six porcine and six human cervical specimens were loaded nondestructively with pure moments: 1) in an intact state; 2) after a corpectomy of C5 and substitution by a cage with integrated force sensor; 3) after additional instrumentation with a posterior screw and rod system with: a) lateral mass and b) pedicle screws; 4) after instrumentation with an anterior plate; and 5) with a circumferential instrumentation. The unconstrained motion and the axial loads occurring in the corpectomy gap were measured, as well as the bone mineral density of the specimen before testing.
RESULTS: The range of motion in the intact state, as well as for the different instrumentations, was comparable for flexion-extension. In lateral bending and axial rotation, marked differences in the intact state as well as for pedicle screw instrumentations occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: The subaxial porcine cervical spine is a potential model in flexion-extension because of its biomechanical similarity. For lateral bending and axial rotation, the marked differences severly restrict the comparability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15928552     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000164096.71261.c2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  8 in total

1.  Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the complete porcine spine in comparison with data of the human spine.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Wilke; Jürgen Geppert; Annette Kienle
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-06-11       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Anterior C2-C3 fixation with screws: proposal of a new technique and comparative mechanical assays.

Authors:  Helton L A Defino; Orli J Néri; Antonio C Shimano
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-25       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Are the spines of calf, pig and sheep suitable models for pre-clinical implant tests?

Authors:  A Kettler; L Liakos; B Haegele; H-J Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-25       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine.

Authors:  Iris Busscher; Joris J W Ploegmakers; Gijsbertus J Verkerke; Albert G Veldhuizen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct.

Authors:  Tian Wang; Jonathon R Ball; Mattew H Pelletier; William R Walsh
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2014-06-26

6.  Comparison of Cervical Spine Anatomy in Calves, Pigs and Humans.

Authors:  Sun-Ren Sheng; Hua-Zi Xu; Yong-Li Wang; Qing-An Zhu; Fang-Min Mao; Yan Lin; Xiang-Yang Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The "Skipped Segment Screw" Construct: An Alternative to Conventional Lateral Mass Fixation-Biomechanical Analysis in a Porcine Cervical Spine Model.

Authors:  Kedar Prashant Padhye; Yuvaraja Murugan; Raunak Milton; N Arunai Nambi Raj; Kenny Samuel David
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2017-10-11

8.  Musculoskeletal modelling of the human cervical spine for the investigation of injury mechanisms during axial impacts.

Authors:  Pavlos Silvestros; Ezio Preatoni; Harinderjit S Gill; Sabina Gheduzzi; Bruno Agostinho Hernandez; Timothy P Holsgrove; Dario Cazzola
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.