Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices: can we compare in vitro and in vivo loads on the instrumentation?

Luigi la Barbera, Fabio Galbusera, Hans Joachim Wilke, Tomaso Villa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To discuss whether the standard test method for preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices with an anterior support correctly describes the effect of two short-segment posterior stabilization techniques frequently used in clinical practice for the treatment of traumatic, degenerative and iatrogenic instabilities. Methods: A finite element study compared a validated instrumented L2–L4 segment undergoing standing, upper body flexion and extension to ISO 12189 standards model under a compressive load. A bridge instrumentation, with screws only at cranial and caudal levels, and a full stabilization, using screws at every level, are considered for both conditions. The internal loads on the spinal rod and the stress values on the implant are analysed in detail. Results: Using ISO model and a bridge stabilization construct allow to overstress the pedicle screw more than a full stabilization with respect to the corresponding L2–L4 segment undergoing upper body flexion, while the stress on the spinal rod is comparable. Choosing softer/stiffer springs would involve higher/lower loads on every component. Conclusions: ISO model predicts the effects of using both a full and a bridge posterior instrumentation. The study justifies the use of both conditions during in vitro reliability tests to achieve meaningful results easy to compare to clinically relevant loading modes and known in vivo failure modes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)200-209
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Spine Journal
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Spine
Equipment and Supplies
In Vitro Techniques
Pedicle Screws

Keywords

  • Anterior support
  • ASTM F1717
  • Bridge instrumentation
  • Finite element
  • ISO 12189
  • Preclinical evaluation
  • Spine stabilization
  • Standard

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices : can we compare in vitro and in vivo loads on the instrumentation? / la Barbera, Luigi; Galbusera, Fabio; Wilke, Hans Joachim; Villa, Tomaso.

In: European Spine Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2017, p. 200-209.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d099e20dd3084e61844e90bb92cbb785,
title = "Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices: can we compare in vitro and in vivo loads on the instrumentation?",
abstract = "Purpose: To discuss whether the standard test method for preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices with an anterior support correctly describes the effect of two short-segment posterior stabilization techniques frequently used in clinical practice for the treatment of traumatic, degenerative and iatrogenic instabilities. Methods: A finite element study compared a validated instrumented L2–L4 segment undergoing standing, upper body flexion and extension to ISO 12189 standards model under a compressive load. A bridge instrumentation, with screws only at cranial and caudal levels, and a full stabilization, using screws at every level, are considered for both conditions. The internal loads on the spinal rod and the stress values on the implant are analysed in detail. Results: Using ISO model and a bridge stabilization construct allow to overstress the pedicle screw more than a full stabilization with respect to the corresponding L2–L4 segment undergoing upper body flexion, while the stress on the spinal rod is comparable. Choosing softer/stiffer springs would involve higher/lower loads on every component. Conclusions: ISO model predicts the effects of using both a full and a bridge posterior instrumentation. The study justifies the use of both conditions during in vitro reliability tests to achieve meaningful results easy to compare to clinically relevant loading modes and known in vivo failure modes.",
keywords = "Anterior support, ASTM F1717, Bridge instrumentation, Finite element, ISO 12189, Preclinical evaluation, Spine stabilization, Standard",
author = "{la Barbera}, Luigi and Fabio Galbusera and Wilke, {Hans Joachim} and Tomaso Villa",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1007/s00586-016-4766-z",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "200--209",
journal = "European Spine Journal",
issn = "0940-6719",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices

T2 - can we compare in vitro and in vivo loads on the instrumentation?

AU - la Barbera, Luigi

AU - Galbusera, Fabio

AU - Wilke, Hans Joachim

AU - Villa, Tomaso

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Purpose: To discuss whether the standard test method for preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices with an anterior support correctly describes the effect of two short-segment posterior stabilization techniques frequently used in clinical practice for the treatment of traumatic, degenerative and iatrogenic instabilities. Methods: A finite element study compared a validated instrumented L2–L4 segment undergoing standing, upper body flexion and extension to ISO 12189 standards model under a compressive load. A bridge instrumentation, with screws only at cranial and caudal levels, and a full stabilization, using screws at every level, are considered for both conditions. The internal loads on the spinal rod and the stress values on the implant are analysed in detail. Results: Using ISO model and a bridge stabilization construct allow to overstress the pedicle screw more than a full stabilization with respect to the corresponding L2–L4 segment undergoing upper body flexion, while the stress on the spinal rod is comparable. Choosing softer/stiffer springs would involve higher/lower loads on every component. Conclusions: ISO model predicts the effects of using both a full and a bridge posterior instrumentation. The study justifies the use of both conditions during in vitro reliability tests to achieve meaningful results easy to compare to clinically relevant loading modes and known in vivo failure modes.

AB - Purpose: To discuss whether the standard test method for preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices with an anterior support correctly describes the effect of two short-segment posterior stabilization techniques frequently used in clinical practice for the treatment of traumatic, degenerative and iatrogenic instabilities. Methods: A finite element study compared a validated instrumented L2–L4 segment undergoing standing, upper body flexion and extension to ISO 12189 standards model under a compressive load. A bridge instrumentation, with screws only at cranial and caudal levels, and a full stabilization, using screws at every level, are considered for both conditions. The internal loads on the spinal rod and the stress values on the implant are analysed in detail. Results: Using ISO model and a bridge stabilization construct allow to overstress the pedicle screw more than a full stabilization with respect to the corresponding L2–L4 segment undergoing upper body flexion, while the stress on the spinal rod is comparable. Choosing softer/stiffer springs would involve higher/lower loads on every component. Conclusions: ISO model predicts the effects of using both a full and a bridge posterior instrumentation. The study justifies the use of both conditions during in vitro reliability tests to achieve meaningful results easy to compare to clinically relevant loading modes and known in vivo failure modes.

KW - Anterior support

KW - ASTM F1717

KW - Bridge instrumentation

KW - Finite element

KW - ISO 12189

KW - Preclinical evaluation

KW - Spine stabilization

KW - Standard

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988353964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988353964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00586-016-4766-z

DO - 10.1007/s00586-016-4766-z

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84988353964

VL - 26

SP - 200

EP - 209

JO - European Spine Journal

JF - European Spine Journal

SN - 0940-6719

IS - 1

ER -