Sihyong J Kim1,2, Tian Wang2, Matthew H Pelletier2, William R Walsh2. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia. 2. Surgical and Orthopaedics Research Laboratory, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
Background: 'SMART' implants refer to modified orthopedic implants that combine the biomechanical safety and efficacy of traditional devices with the intelligence of data-logging sensors. This review aims to systematically assess the available literature on SMART spinal implants and present these findings in a clinically relevant manner. Methods: A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was conducted by two separate reviewers. Information including sensor type, intended application, and sample size, was extracted from included studies. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) risk of bias tool. Results: Eighteen studies were included for analysis. Eight studies involved SMART rods and ten studies used SMART vertebral body replacements (VBR). No more than 20 patients are reported to have received a SMART spinal implant. Including non-primary evidence, seven unique designs for SMART spinal implants were found. The majority of these used strain gauges with recent designs including thermometers and accelerometers. Discussion: At present, SMART spinal implants have primarily focused on utilising strain gauges to report loading on the implant itself. This is a logical first step as it allows quantification of real-world requirements of an implant, detection of catastrophic failure, while also allowing researchers and clinicians to estimate changes in load sharing between newly forming bone and the implant itself, providing real-time information on the progression of healing and fusion. Future work includes documenting the correlation between data provided by these SMART implants and clinical findings, including complications such as pedicle screw loosening and interbody cage subsidence. 2022 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
Background: 'SMART' implants refer to modified orthopedic implants that combine the biomechanical safety and efficacy of traditional devices with the intelligence of data-logging sensors. This review aims to systematically assess the available literature on SMART spinal implants and present these findings in a clinically relevant manner. Methods: A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was conducted by two separate reviewers. Information including sensor type, intended application, and sample size, was extracted from included studies. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) risk of bias tool. Results: Eighteen studies were included for analysis. Eight studies involved SMART rods and ten studies used SMART vertebral body replacements (VBR). No more than 20 patients are reported to have received a SMART spinal implant. Including non-primary evidence, seven unique designs for SMART spinal implants were found. The majority of these used strain gauges with recent designs including thermometers and accelerometers. Discussion: At present, SMART spinal implants have primarily focused on utilising strain gauges to report loading on the implant itself. This is a logical first step as it allows quantification of real-world requirements of an implant, detection of catastrophic failure, while also allowing researchers and clinicians to estimate changes in load sharing between newly forming bone and the implant itself, providing real-time information on the progression of healing and fusion. Future work includes documenting the correlation between data provided by these SMART implants and clinical findings, including complications such as pedicle screw loosening and interbody cage subsidence. 2022 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
SMART devices; Telemetry; sensor; spinal implants; spine surgery
Authors: Eric H Ledet; Darryl D'Lima; Peter Westerhoff; John A Szivek; Rebecca A Wachs; Georg Bergmann Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Naomasa Fukase; Victoria R Duke; Monica C Lin; Ingrid K Stake; Matthieu Huard; Johnny Huard; Meir T Marmor; Michel M Maharbiz; Nicole P Ehrhart; Chelsea S Bahney; Safa T Herfat Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 3.847