Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-09-2016 | Original Article

Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices: can the current standards represent basic everyday life activities?

Authors: Luigi La Barbera, Fabio Galbusera, Hans-Joachim Wilke, Tomaso Villa

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 9/2016

Abstract

Purpose

To discuss whether the available standard methods for preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices can represent basic everyday life activities and how to compare the results obtained with different procedures.

Methods

A comparative finite element study compared ASTM F1717 and ISO 12189 standards to validated instrumented L2–L4 segments undergoing standing, upper body flexion and extension. The internal loads on the spinal rod and the maximum stress on the implant are analysed.

Results

ISO recommended anterior support stiffness and force allow for reproducing bending moments measured in vivo on an instrumented physiological segment during upper body flexion. Despite the significance of ASTM model from an engineering point of view, the overly conservative vertebrectomy model represents an unrealistic worst case scenario. A method is proposed to determine the load to apply on assemblies with different anterior support stiffnesses to guarantee a comparable bending moment and reproduce specific everyday life activities.

Conclusions

The study increases our awareness on the use of the current standards to achieve meaningful results easy to compare and interpret.

Graham J, Estes BT (2009) What standards can (and can’t) tell us about a spinal device. SAS J 3:178–183. doi:10.1016/j.esas.2009.11.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

ASTM Standard (2015) F1717: Standard test methods for spinal implant constructs in a vertebrectomy model. doi:10.1520/F1717-15

ISO Standard (2008) 12189: Implants for surgery—mechanical testing of implantable spinal devices—fatigue test method for spinal implant assemblies using an anterior support

Mosnier T (2008) Contribution à l’analyse bioméchanique et à l’évaluation des implants rachidiens. PhD Thesis, École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, FR

Carson W, Asher M, Boachie-Adjei O, Akbarnia B, Dzioba R, Lebwohl N (2003) History of isola-vsp fatigue testing results with correlation to clinical implant failures. In: Melkerson M, Griffith S, Kirkpatrick J (eds) Spinal implants: are we evaluating them appropriately? STP 1431. ASTM International, pp 3–16

Cunningham BW, Sefter JC, Shono Y, McAfee PC (1993) Static and cyclical biomechanical analysis of pedicle screw spinal constructs. Spine 18(12):1677–1688CrossRefPubMed

Villa T, La Barbera L, Galbusera F (2014) Reply to the letter to the editor entitled: response to comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems. Spine J 14(12):3068. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.08.008 CrossRefPubMed

Graham J, Anderson P, Speciner D (2014) Letter to the editor in response to Villa T, La Barbera L, Galbusera F, Comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems. Spine J 14(12):3067–3068. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.07.026 CrossRefPubMed

La Barbera L, Ottardi C, Villa T (2015) Comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems: the importance of preload in ISO 12189. Spine J 15(10):2290–2296. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.461 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Villa T, La Barbera L, Galbusera F (2014) Comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems. Spine J 14(4):695–704. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.032 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sapkas G, Kateros K, Papadakis SA, Brilakis E, Macheras G, Katonis P (2010) Treatment of unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures by indirect reduction and posterior stabilization: short-segment versus long-segment stabilization. Open Orthop J. 15(4):7–13. doi:10.2174/1874325001004010007 CrossRef

12.

Hwang JH, Modi HN, Yang JH, Kim SJ, Lee SH (2009) Short segment pedicle screw fixation for unstable T11-L2 fractures: with or without fusion? A three-year follow-up study. Acta Orthop Belg 75(6):822–827PubMed

13.

Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G, Lambiris E (2004) Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(7):735–42

14.

Chamoli U, Diwan AD (2014) Tsafnat N Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilizers for degenerative spine: in vitro biomechanical testing and clinical outcomes. J Biomed Mater Res A (United States) 102(9):p3324–p3340CrossRef

15.

Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Ames CP, Demakakos J, Fu KM, Keshavarzi S, Li CM, Deviren V, Schwab FJ, Lafage V, Bess S (2012) Assessment of symptomatic rod fracture after posterior instrumented fusion for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 71(4):862–867CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hyun SJ, Rhim SC (2010) Clinical outcomes and complications after pedicle subtraction osteotomy for fixed sagittal imbalance patients: a long-term follow-up data. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47(2):95–101. doi:10.3340/jkns.2010.47.2.95 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Galbusera F, Bellini C, Anasetti F, Ciavarro C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M (2011) Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison. Med Eng Phys 33(4):490–496. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.11.018 CrossRefPubMed

18.

La Barbera L, Galbusera F, Villa T, Wilke H-J (2014) ASTM F1717 standard for the preclinical evaluation of posterior spinal fixators: can we improve it? Proc Inst Mech Eng H 228(10):1014–1026. doi:10.1177/0954411914554244 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Graichen F, Weber U (1997) Comparison of loads on internal spinal fixation devices measured in vitro and in vivo. Med Eng Phys 19(6):539–546CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wilke HJ, Rohlmann A, Neller S, Schultheiss M, Bergmann G, Graichen F, Claes L (2001) Is it possible to simulate physiologic loading conditions by applying pure moments? A comparison of in vivo and in vitro load components in an internal fixator. Spine 26(6):636–642CrossRefPubMed

21.

Rohlmann A, Zander T, Rao M, Bergmann G (2009) Applying a follower load delivers realistic results for simulating standing. J Biomec 42(10):1520–1526. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.03.048 CrossRef

22.

Rohlmann A, Zander T, Rao M, Bergmann G (2009) Realistic loading conditions for upper body bending. J Biomech 42:884–890. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.01.017 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G, Boustani H (2012) Optimal stiffness of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation implant for the lumbar spine. Europ Spine J 21:666–673. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2047-4 CrossRef

24.

Dreischarf M, Zander T, Bergmann G, Rohlmann A (2010) A non-optimized follower load may cause considerable intervertebral rotations. J Biomech 43(13):2625–2628. doi:10.1016/j.biomech.2010.05.033 CrossRefPubMed

25.

La Barbera L, Costa F, Villa T (2016) ISO 12189 standard for the preclinical evaluation of posterior spinal stabilization devices—II: a parametric comparative study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 230(2):134–144. doi:10.1177/0954411915621588 CrossRefPubMed

26.

La Barbera L, Villa T (2016) ISO 12189 standard for the preclinical evaluation of posterior spinal stabilization devices—I: assembly procedure and validation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 230(2):122–133. doi:10.1177/0954411915621587 CrossRefPubMed

27.

ISO Standard (2010) 10243: tools for pressing—compression springs with rectangular section—housing dimensions and colour coding

28.

Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Graichen F (1999) Loads on internal spinal fixators measured in different body positions. Europ Spine J 8(5):354–359CrossRef

29.

Rohlmann A, Claes L, Graichen F, Neef P, Wilke HJ (1997) Loads on an internal spinal fixation device during walking. J Biomech 30(1):41–47CrossRefPubMed

30.

Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Bergmann G (2000) Changes in the loads on an internal spinal fixator after iliac-crest autograft. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(3):445–449CrossRefPubMed

31.

Rohlmann A, Claes L, Graichen F, Neef P, Wilke H (2001) Comparison of intradiscal pressures and spinal fixator loads for different body positions and exercises. Ergonomics 44(8):781–794CrossRef

32.

Skalli W, Robin S, Lavaste F, Dubousset J (1993) A biomechanical analysis of short segment spinal fixation using a three-dimensional geometric and mechanical model. Spine 18(5):536–545CrossRefPubMed

33.

Rohlmann A, Pohl D, Bender A, Graichen F, Dymke J, Schmidt H, Bergmann G (2014) Activities of everyday life with high spinal loads. PLoS One (United States) 9(5) pe98510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098510

34.

Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Bergmann G (2002) Loads on an internal spinal fixation device during physical therapy. Phys Ther 82(1):44–52PubMed

35.

Rohlmann A, Consmuller T, Dreischarf M, Bashkuev M, Disch A, Pries E, Duda GN, Schmidt H (2014) Measurement of the number of lumbar spinal movements in the sagittal plane in a 24-hour period. Eur Spine J (Germany) 23(11):2375–2384. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3588-0 CrossRef

Title: Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices: can the current standards represent basic everyday life activities?
Authors: Luigi La Barbera
Fabio Galbusera
Hans-Joachim Wilke
Tomaso Villa
Publication date: 01-09-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 9/2016
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4622-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices: can the current standards represent basic everyday life activities?

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2016

Spinal shape modulation in a porcine model by a highly flexible and extendable non-fusion implant system

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of M. D. Sewell et al. concerning “Virtually bloodless posterior midline exposure of the lumbar spine using the ‘para-midline’ fatty plane” by Moghimi MH, Leonard DA, Cho CH, Schoenfeld AJ, Phan P, Harris MB, Bono CM: Eur Spine J (2016) 25;956–962

Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis

Is duration of preoperative anti-tuberculosis treatment a risk factor for postoperative relapse or non-healing of spinal tuberculosis: response to comments by Li et al.

A pedicle screw system and a lamina hook system provide similar primary and long-term stability: a biomechanical in vitro study with quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions

Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines: a review