Literature DB >> 16595454

Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants.

Vijay K Goel1, Manohar M Panjabi, Avinash G Patwardhan, Andrew P Dooris, Hassan Serhan.   

Abstract

Prior to implantation, medical devices are subjected to rigorous testing to ensure safety and efficacy. A full battery of testing protocols for implantable spinal devices may include many steps. Testing for biocompatibility is a necessary first step. On selection of the material, evaluation protocols should address both the biomechanical and clinical performance of the device. Before and during mechanical testing, finite element modeling can be used to optimize the design, predict performance, and, to some extent, predict durability and efficacy of the device. Following bench-type evaluations, the biomechanical characteristics of the device (e.g., motion, load-sharing, and intradiscal pressure) can be evaluated with use of fresh human cadaveric spines. The information gained from cadaveric testing may be supplemented by the finite element model-based analyses. Upon the successful completion of these tests, studies that make use of an animal model are performed to assess the structure, function, histology, and biomechanics of the device in situ and as a final step before clinical investigations are initiated. The protocols that are presently being used for the testing of spinal devices reflect the basic and applied research experience of the last three decades in the field of orthopaedic biomechanics in general and the spine in particular. The innovation within the spinal implant industry (e.g., fusion devices in the past versus motion-preservation devices at present) suggests that test protocols represent a dynamic process that must keep pace with changing expectations. Apart from randomized clinical trials, no single test can fully evaluate all of the characteristics of a device. Due to the inherent limitations of each test, data must be viewed in a proper context. Finally, a case is made for the medical community to converge toward standardized test protocols that will enable us to compare the vast number of currently available devices, whether on the market or still under development, in a systematic, laboratory-independent manner.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16595454     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01363

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  51 in total

1.  Biomechanical evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System® (TFAS®): loading as compared to a rigid posterior instrumentation system.

Authors:  Simon G Sjovold; Qingan Zhu; Anton Bowden; Chad R Larson; Peter M de Bakker; Marta L Villarraga; Jorge A Ochoa; David M Rosler; Peter A Cripton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization: an in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems.

Authors:  Brice Ilharreborde; Miranda N Shaw; Lawrence J Berglund; Kristin D Zhao; Ralph E Gay; Kai-Nan An
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-12-04       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Comparison of Intervertebral ROM in Multi-Level Cadaveric Lumbar Spines Using Distinct Pure Moment Loading Approaches.

Authors:  Brandon Santoni; Andres F Cabezas; Daniel J Cook; Matthew S Yeager; James B Billys; Benjamin Whiting; Boyle C Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

4.  Foreword, Biomechanics Special Issue.

Authors:  Boyle Cheng; Vijay Goel
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

5.  Advanced Multi-Axis Spine Testing: Clinical Relevance and Research Recommendations.

Authors:  Timothy P Holsgrove; Nikhil R Nayak; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

6.  Biological performance of a polycaprolactone-based scaffold plus recombinant human morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in an ovine thoracic interbody fusion model.

Authors:  Mostyn R N O Yong; Siamak Saifzadeh; Mia Woodruff; Geoffrey N Askin; Robert D Labrom; Dietmar W Hutmacher; Clayton J Adam
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue.

Authors:  Zhong Jun Mo; Yan Bin Zhao; Li Zhen Wang; Yu Sun; Ming Zhang; Yu Bo Fan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  [Effect of lumbar hybrid instrumentation and rigid fusion on the treated and the adjacent segments. A biomechanical study].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; M Akbar; C H Fürstenberg; C Carstens; S Hemmer; C Schilling
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Sophie Campana; Sylvain Persohn; Gilles Perrin; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Relation between radiological assessment and biomechanical stability of lumbar interbody fusion in a large animal model.

Authors:  R J Kroeze; A J van der Veen; B J van Royen; R A Bank; M N Helder; T H Smit
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.