Literature DB >> 21764061

Inter-laboratory variability in in vitro spinal segment flexibility testing.

Daniel J Wheeler1, Andrew L Freeman, Arin M Ellingson, David J Nuckley, Jenni M Buckley, Justin K Scheer, Neil R Crawford, Joan E Bechtold.   

Abstract

In vitro spine flexibility testing has been performed using a variety of laboratory-specific loading apparatuses and conditions, making test results across laboratories difficult to compare. The application of pure moments has been well established for spine flexibility testing, but to our knowledge there have been no attempts to quantify differences in range of motion (ROM) resulting from laboratory-specific loading apparatuses. Seven fresh-frozen lumbar cadaveric motion segments were tested intact at four independent laboratories. Unconstrained pure moments of 7.5 Nm were applied in each anatomic plane without an axial preload. At laboratories A and B, pure moments were applied using hydraulically actuated spinal loading fixtures with either a passive (A) or controlled (B) XY table. At laboratories C and D, pure moments were applied using a sliding (C) or fixed ring (D) cable-pulley system with a servohydraulic test frame. Three sinusoidal load-unload cycles were applied at laboratories A and B while a single quasistatic cycle was applied in 1.5 Nm increments at laboratories C and D. Non-contact motion measurement systems were used to quantify ROM. In all test directions, the ROM variability among donors was greater than single-donor ROM variability among laboratories. The maximum difference in average ROM between any two laboratories was 1.5° in flexion-extension, 1.3° in lateral bending and 1.1° in axial torsion. This was the first study to quantify ROM in a single group of spinal motion segments at four independent laboratories with varying pure moment systems. These data support our hypothesis that given a well-described test method, independent laboratories can produce similar biomechanical outcomes.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21764061     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.06.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  10 in total

1.  Biomechanical Comparison of Robotically Applied Pure Moment, Ideal Follower Load, and Novel Trunk Weight Loading Protocols on L4-L5 Cadaveric Segments during Flexion-Extension.

Authors:  Charles R Bennett; Denis J DiAngelo; Brian P Kelly
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

2.  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

3.  Comparative role of disc degeneration and ligament failure on functional mechanics of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Arin M Ellingson; Miranda N Shaw; Hugo Giambini; Kai-Nan An
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 1.763

4.  Altered helical axis patterns of the lumbar spine indicate increased instability with disc degeneration.

Authors:  Arin M Ellingson; David J Nuckley
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  In vitro spine testing using a robot-based testing system: comparison of displacement control and "hybrid control".

Authors:  Kevin M Bell; Robert A Hartman; Lars G Gilbertson; James D Kang
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Disc degeneration assessed by quantitative T2* (T2 star) correlated with functional lumbar mechanics.

Authors:  Arin M Ellingson; Hitesh Mehta; David W Polly; Jutta Ellermann; David J Nuckley
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Comparing the Biomechanical Stability of Cortical Screw Trajectory Versus Standard Pedicle Screw Trajectory for Short- and Long-Segment Posterior Fixation in 3-Column Thoracic Spinal Injury.

Authors:  Amey R Savardekar; Nestor G Rodriguez-Martinez; Anna G U S Newcomb; Phillip M Reyes; Hector Soriano-Baron; Steve W Chang; Brian P Kelly; Neil R Crawford
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-06-30

8.  A Cadaver-Based Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Posterior Approach to Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Analysis of the Fixation and Center of the Instantaneous Axis of Rotation.

Authors:  Dawood Sayed; Kasra Amirdelfan; Ramana K Naidu; Oluwatodimu R Raji; Steven Falowski
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2021-12-17

9.  Range of motion of the intact lumbar segment: a multivariate study of 42 lumbar spines.

Authors:  Daniel J Cook; Matthew S Yeager; Boyle C Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-03-05

10.  Tissue loading created during spinal manipulation in comparison to loading created by passive spinal movements.

Authors:  Martha Funabashi; Gregory N Kawchuk; Albert H Vette; Peter Goldsmith; Narasimha Prasad
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.