Literature DB >> 26273552

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

Timothy P Holsgrove1, Nikhil R Nayak2, William C Welch2, Beth A Winkelstein1.   

Abstract

Back pain and spinal degeneration affect a large proportion of the general population. The economic burden of spinal degeneration is significant, and the treatment of spinal degeneration represents a large proportion of healthcare costs. However, spinal surgery does not always provide improved clinical outcomes compared to non-surgical alternatives, and modern interventions, such as total disc replacement, may not offer clinically relevant improvements over more established procedures. Although psychological and socioeconomic factors play an important role in the development and response to back pain, the variation in clinical success is also related to the complexity of the spine, and the multi-faceted manner by which spinal degeneration often occurs. The successful surgical treatment of degenerative spinal conditions requires collaboration between surgeons, engineers, and scientists in order to provide a multi-disciplinary approach to managing the complete condition. In this review, we provide relevant background from both the clinical and the basic research perspectives, which is synthesized into several examples and recommendations for consideration in increasing translational research between communities with the goal of providing improved knowledge and care. Current clinical imaging, and multi-axis testing machines, offer great promise for future research by combining invivo kinematics and loading with in-vitro testing in six degrees of freedom to offer more accurate predictions of the performance of new spinal instrumentation. Upon synthesis of the literature, it is recommended that in-vitro tests strive to recreate as many aspects of the in-vivo environment as possible, and that a physiological preload is a critical factor in assessing spinal biomechanics in the laboratory. A greater link between surgical procedures, and the outcomes in all three anatomical planes should be considered in both the in-vivo and in-vitro settings, to provide data relevant to quality of motion, and stability.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Spine surgery; biomechanics; multi-axis; spine

Year:  2015        PMID: 26273552      PMCID: PMC4528505          DOI: 10.14444/2034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  130 in total

1.  A continuous pure moment loading apparatus for biomechanical testing of multi-segment spine specimens.

Authors:  J T Lysack; J P Dickey; G A Dumas; D Yen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Physiological axial compressive preloads increase motion segment stiffness, linearity and hysteresis in all six degrees of freedom for small displacements about the neutral posture.

Authors:  Mack G Gardner-Morse; Ian A Stokes
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  Biomechanical comparison of lumbosacral fixation techniques in a calf spine model.

Authors:  Nathan H Lebwohl; Bryan W Cunningham; Anton Dmitriev; Norimichi Shimamoto; Lee Gooch; Vince Devlin; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Theodore A Wagner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Facet joint contact pressure is not significantly affected by ProDisc cervical disc arthroplasty in sagittal bending: a single-level cadaveric study.

Authors:  Joel A Bauman; Nicolas V Jaumard; Benjamin B Guarino; Christine L Weisshaar; Daniel E Lipschutz; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Hua Jiang; Zezhang Zhu; Yong Qiu; Bangping Qian; Xusheng Qiu; Mingliang Ji
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2011-10-09       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage.

Authors:  R J Hacker; J C Cauthen; T J Gilbert; S L Griffith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  The long-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy with and without intervertebral bone graft placement.

Authors:  W Thorell; J Cooper; L Hellbusch; L Leibrock
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Activation of lumbar paraspinal and abdominal muscles during therapeutic exercises in chronic low back pain patients.

Authors:  Jari P Arokoski; Taru Valta; Markku Kankaanpää; Olavi Airaksinen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.966

9.  Clinical outcomes of the Dynesys dynamic neutralization system: 1-year preliminary results.

Authors:  William C Welch; Boyle C Cheng; Tariq E Awad; Reginald Davis; James H Maxwell; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey K Wingate; John Sherman; M Mason Macenski
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 4.047

10.  Examination of cervical spine kinematics in complex, multiplanar motions after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and total disc replacement.

Authors:  Alan H Daniels; David J Paller; Ross J Feller; Nikhil A Thakur; Alison M Biercevicz; Mark A Palumbo; Joseph J Crisco; Ian A Madom
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2012-12-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.