Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants

被引:204
作者
Goel, VK [1 ]
Panjabi, MM [1 ]
Patwardhan, AG [1 ]
Dooris, AP [1 ]
Serhan, H [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toledo, Coll Engn, Dept Bioengn, Toledo, OH 43606 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2106/JBJS.E.01363
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Prior to implantation, medical devices are subjected to rigorous testing to ensure safety and efficacy. A full battery of testing protocols for implantable spinal devices may include many steps. Testing for biocompatibility is a necessary first step. On selection of the material, evaluation protocols should address both the biomechanical and clinical performance of the device. Before and during mechanical testing, finite element modeling can be used to optimize the design, predict performance, and, to some extent, predict durability and efficacy of the device. Following bench-type evaluations, the biomechanical characteristics of the device (e.g., motion, load-sharing, and intradiscal pressure) can be evaluated with use of fresh human cadaveric spines. The information gained from cadaveric testing may be supplemented by the finite element model-based analyses. Upon the successful completion of these tests, studies that make use of an animal model are performed to assess the structure, function, histology, and biomechanics of the device in situ and as a final step before clinical investigations are initiated. The protocols that are presently being used for the testing of spinal devices reflect the basic and applied research experience of the last three decades in the field of orthopaedic biomechanics in general and the spine in particular. The innovation within the spinal implant industry (e.g., fusion devices in the past versus motion-preservation devices at present) suggests that test protocols represent a dynamic process that must keep pace with changing expectations. Apart from randomized clinical trials, no single test can fully evaluate all of the characteristics of a device. Due to the inherent limitations of each test, data must be viewed in a proper context. Finally, a case is made for the medical community to converge toward standardized test protocols that will enable us to compare the vast number of currently available devices, whether on the market or still under development, in a systematic, laboratory-independent manner.
引用
收藏
页码:103 / 109
页数:7
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 2005, ANN BOOK ASTM STAND
[2]
Cunningham Bryan W, 2003, Spine J, V3, P19, DOI 10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00443-6
[3]
Effects of Charite artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol [J].
Goel, VK ;
Grauer, JN ;
Patel, TC ;
Biyani, A ;
Sairyo, K ;
Vishnubhotla, S ;
Matyas, A ;
Cowgill, I ;
Shaw, M ;
Long, R ;
Dick, D ;
Panjabi, MM ;
Serhan, H .
SPINE, 2005, 30 (24) :2755-2764
[4]
GOEL VK, 2005, ROUNDTABLES SPINE SU
[5]
PREDICTION OF FATIGUE SCREW LOOSENING IN ANTERIOR SPINAL FIXATION USING DUAL-ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY [J].
LIM, TH ;
AN, HS ;
HASEGAWA, T ;
MCGRADY, L ;
HASANOGLU, KY ;
WILSON, CR .
SPINE, 1995, 20 (23) :2565-2568
[6]
BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION OF SPINAL FIXATION DEVICES .1. A CONCEPTUAL-FRAMEWORK [J].
PANJABI, MM .
SPINE, 1988, 13 (10) :1129-1134
[7]
PANJABI MM, 2002, WORLD C BIOM 2002 AU
[8]
Compressive preload improves the stability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage constructs [J].
Patwardhan, AG ;
Carandang, G ;
Ghanayem, AJ ;
Havey, RM ;
Cunningham, B ;
Voronov, LI ;
Phillips, FM .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2003, 85A (09) :1749-1756
[9]
Testing of human cadaveric functional spinal units to the ASTM draft standard, "standard test methods for static and dynamic characterization of spinal artificial discs." [J].
Spenciner, DB ;
Paiva, JA ;
Crisco, JJ .
SPINAL IMPLANTS: ARE WE EVALUATING THEM APPROPRIATELY, 2003, 1431 :114-126
[10]
Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs [J].
Steffen, T ;
Tsantrizos, A ;
Aebi, M .
SPINE, 2000, 25 (09) :1077-1084