Advertisement

Mechanical and Biomechanical Testing of Spinal Implants

  • Werner Schmoelz
  • Annette Kienle
Chapter

Abstract

Mechanical and biomechanical testing provides crucial information about the safety, effectiveness and function of spinal implants. Mainly static and dynamic tests are carried out. While mechanical tests may be carried out according to testing standards or in some cases to individual testing procedures, biomechanical tests should be conducted according to published recommendations or in case of dynamic testing, as individual test procedures. In order to allow for direct comparison between testing laboratories, it should be strived for standardised testing. However, as standardised loading often simplifies the in vivo occurring conditions, more physiological testing can be carried out additionally and may become the next improved testing standard. Mechanical testing focuses mainly on the safety issue, while effectiveness and function of an implant can be tested in a biomechanical setup. Each type of implant generally requires specific mechanical and biomechanical tests depending on its design, material, indication and function. In general, mechanical testing can be subdivided in static and dynamic fatigue testing as well as special types of testing such as wear or corrosion testing. Biomechanical testing concentrates on quasi-static and short-term dynamic testing mostly in interaction with biological tissue.

Keywords

Biomechanical Test Spinal Instrumentation Artificial Disc Follower Load Spinal Implant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    ASTM F1717-11A (2011) Standard test methods for spinal implant constructs in a vertebrectomy model. Current edition approved July 1, 2011. Published July 2011, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASTM F2077-11 (2011) Test methods for intervertebral body fusion devices. Current edition approved July 15, 2011. Published August 2011, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM F2267-04 (Reapproved 2011) (2011) Standard test methods for measuring load induced subsidence of intervertebral body fusion device under static axial compression. Current edition approved Dec. 1, 2011. Published January 2012, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTM F2346-05 (Reapproved 2011) (2011) Standard test methods for static and dynamic characterization of spinal artificial discs. Current edition approved Dec. 1, 2011. Published January 2012, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ASTM F2423-11 (2000) Standard guide for functional, kinematic and wear assessment of total disc prostheses. Current edition approved July 1, 2011. Published August 2011, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cripton PA, Jain GM, Wittenberg RH et al (2000) Load-sharing characteristics of stabilized lumbar spine segments. Spine 25:170–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Disch AC, Knop C, Schaser KD et al (2008) Angular stable anterior plating following thoracolumbar corpectomy reveals superior segmental stability compared to conventional polyaxial plate fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1429–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferguson SJ, Winkler F, Nolte LP (2002) Anterior fixation in the osteoporotic spine: cut-out and pullout characteristics of implants. Eur Spine J 11(6):527–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO 12189:2008(E) (2008) Implants for surgery – Mechanical testing of implantable spinal devices – Fatigue test method for spinal implant assemblies using an anterior support. Published 29 Feb 2008, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kettler A, Schmoelz W, Shezifi Y et al (2006) Biomechanical performance of the new BeadEx implant in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures: restoration and maintenance of height and stability. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21(7):676–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC et al (2006) Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 15(6):913–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Panjabi MM (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine 13:1129–1134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Carandang G et al (2003) Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine. J Orthop Res 21:540–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Graichen F et al (1997) Comparison of loads on internal spinal fixation devices measured in vitro and in vivo. Med Eng Phys 19:539–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2006) Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 15:1276–85Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilke HJ, Neef P, Caimi M et al (1999) New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine 24:755–762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Trauma Surgery, and Sports Medicine – BiomechanicsMedical University InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Mechanical Implant Testing, SpineServ GmbH & Co. KGUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations