Literature DB >> 32333606

Assessing the biofidelity of in vitro biomechanical testing of the human cervical spine.

Richard A Wawrose1, Forbes E Howington1, Clarissa M LeVasseur2, Clair N Smith1, Brandon K Couch1, Jeremy D Shaw1, William F Donaldson1, Joon Y Lee1, Charity G Patterson1, William J Anderst2, Kevin M Bell1.   

Abstract

In vitro biomechanical studies of the osteoligamentous spine are widely used to characterize normal biomechanics, identify injury mechanisms, and assess the effects of degeneration and surgical instrumentation on spine mechanics. The objective of this study was to determine how well four standards in vitro loading paradigms replicate in vivo kinematics with regards to the instantaneous center of rotation and arthrokinematics in relation to disc deformation. In vivo data were previously collected from 20 asymptomatic participants (45.5 ± 5.8 years) who performed full range of motion neck flexion-extension (FE) within a biplane x-ray system. Intervertebral kinematics were determined with sub-millimeter precision using a validated model-based tracking process. Ten cadaveric spines (51.8 ± 7.3 years) were tested in FE within a robotic testing system. Each specimen was tested under four loading conditions: pure moment, axial loading, follower loading, and combined loading. The in vivo and in vitro bone motion data were directly compared. The average in vitro instant center of rotation was significantly more anterior in all four loading paradigms for all levels. In general, the anterior and posterior disc heights were larger in the in vitro models than in vivo. However, after adjusting for gender, the observed differences in disc height were not statistically significant. This data suggests that in vitro biomechanical testing alone may fail to replicate in vivo conditions, with significant implications for novel motion preservation devices such as cervical disc arthroplasty implants.
© 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomechanics; cervical spine; instant center of rotation; intervertebral discs; kinematics

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32333606      PMCID: PMC7606317          DOI: 10.1002/jor.24702

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.102


  40 in total

1.  In vitro axial preload application during spine flexibility testing: towards reduced apparatus-related artefacts.

Authors:  P A Cripton; S B Bruehlmann; T E Orr; T R Oxland; L P Nolte
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical ProDisc-C versus hybrid construct.

Authors:  Bo Young Cho; Jesse Lim; Hong Bo Sim; Jon Park
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  An improved biomechanical testing protocol for evaluating spinal arthroplasty and motion preservation devices in a multilevel human cadaveric cervical model.

Authors:  Denis J DiAngelo; Kevin T Foley
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 4.047

4.  Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michael A Finn; Darrel S Brodke; Michael Daubs; Alpesh Patel; Kent N Bachus
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Optimised loads for the simulation of axial rotation in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Marcel Dreischarf; Antonius Rohlmann; Georg Bergmann; Thomas Zander
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 6.  Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature.

Authors:  David Volkheimer; Masoud Malakoutian; Thomas R Oxland; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Investigation of optimal follower load path generated by trunk muscle coordination.

Authors:  Kyungsoo Kim; Yoon Hyuk Kim; SuKyoung Lee
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  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

9.  In vivo flexion/extension of the normal cervical spine.

Authors:  J Dvorak; M M Panjabi; J E Novotny; J A Antinnes
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  Quantifying the effects of age, gender, degeneration, and adjacent level degeneration on cervical spine range of motion using multivariate analyses.

Authors:  Andrew K Simpson; Debdut Biswas; John W Emerson; Brandon D Lawrence; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  1 in total

1.  Study on biomechanical analysis of two-level cervical Mobi-C and arthrodesis.

Authors:  Chao Sun; Yang Li; Rongjie Feng; Shijie Han
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 4.060

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.