Доступ предоставлен для: Guest
Портал Begell Электронная Бибилиотека e-Книги Журналы Справочники и Сборники статей Коллекции
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants
SJR: 0.145 SNIP: 0.491 CiteScore™: 0.89

ISSN Печать: 1050-6934
ISSN Онлайн: 1940-4379

Том 30, 2020 Том 29, 2019 Том 28, 2018 Том 27, 2017 Том 26, 2016 Том 25, 2015 Том 24, 2014 Том 23, 2013 Том 22, 2012 Том 21, 2011 Том 20, 2010 Том 19, 2009 Том 18, 2008 Том 17, 2007 Том 16, 2006 Том 15, 2005 Том 14, 2004 Том 13, 2003 Том 12, 2002 Том 11, 2001 Том 10, 2000

Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants

DOI: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2020035597
pages 125-129

Comparison of Biomechanical Properties of a Synthetic L3-S1 Spine Model and Cadaveric Human Samples

Anita Vijapura
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL
David N. Kaimrajh
Max Biedermann Institute for Biomechanics at Mount Sinai, Miami Beach, FL
Edward L. Milne
Max Biedermann Institute for Biomechanics at Mount Sinai, Miami Beach, FL
Loren L. Latta
Max Biedermann Institute for Biomechanics, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL; Department of Orthopaedics, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136
Francesco Travascio
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL; Max Biedermann Institute for Biomechanics at Mount Sinai, Miami Beach, FL; Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL

Краткое описание

Human cadavers currently represent the gold standard for spine biomechanical testing, but limitations such as costs, storage, handling, and high interspecimen variance motivate the development of alternatives. A commercially available synthetic surrogate for the human spine, the Sawbones spine model (SBSM), has been developed. The equivalence of SBSM to a human cadaver in terms of biomechanical behavior has not been fully assessed. The objective of this study is to compare the biomechanics of a lumbar tract of SBSM to that of a cadaver under physiologically relevant mechanical loads. An L3-S1 SBSM and 39 comparable human cadaver lumbar spine tracts were used. Each sample was loaded in pure flexion-extension or torsion. Gravity and follower loads were also included. The movement of each vertebral body was tracked via motion capture. The range of motion (ROM) of each spine segment was recorded, as well as the overall stiffness of each L3-S1 sample. The ROM of SBSM L3-L4 was larger than that found in cadavers in flexion-extension and torsion. For the other spine levels, the ROMs of SBSM were within one standard deviation from the mean values measured in cadavers. The values of structural stiffness for L3-S1 of SBSM were comparable to those of cadaveric specimens for both flexion and torsion. In extension, SBSM was more compliant than cadavers. In conclusion, most of the biomechanical properties of an L3-S1 SBSM model were comparable to those of human cadaveric specimens, supporting the use of this synthetic surrogate for testing applications.


  1. Holland JP, Waugh L, Horgan A, Paleri V, Deehan DJ. Cadaveric hands-on training for surgical specialties: Is this back to the future for surgical skills development? J Surg Ed. 2011;68(2):110-6. .

  2. Hongo M, Gay RE, Hsu JT, Zhao KD, Ilharreborde B, Berglund LJ, An K-N. Effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycles on intervertebral dynamic motion characteristics in the porcine lumbar spine. J Biomech. 2008;41(4):916-20. .

  3. Kerckaert I, Van Hoof T, Pattyn P, D'Herde K. Endogent: Centre for anatomy and invasive techniques. Anatomy. 2008;2:28-33. .

  4. Thiel W. The preservation of the whole corpse with natural color. Anat Anz. 1992;174(3):185-95. .

  5. Singh AK, Sharma RC, Sharma RK, Musmade DM. Challenges in cadaver availability for learning and research in medical sciences. Int J Med Clin Res. 2011;2(2):67-71. .

  6. Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite tibia models. J Biomech. 2000;33(3):279-88. .

  7. Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, Cappuccino A, McAfee PC. The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: An in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine. 1997;22(22):2655-63. .

  8. Wilke HJ, Jungkunz B, Wenger K, Claes LE. Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: Effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular-deformation rate, and moisture condition. Anat Rec. 1998;251(1):15-19. .

  9. Baramki HG, Steffen T, Lander P, Chang M, Marchesi D. The efficacy of interconnected porous hydroxyapatite in achieving posterolateral lumbar fusion in sheep. Spine. 2000;25(9):1053-60. .

  10. Gurwitz GS, Dawson JM, McNamara MJ, Federspiel CF, Spengler DM. Biomechanical analysis of three surgical approaches for lumbar burst fractures using short-segment instrumentation. Spine. 1993;18(8):977-82. .

  11. Nagata H, Schendel MJ, Transfeldt EE, Lewis JL. The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbosacral motion. Spine. 1993;18(16):2471-79. .

  12. Nuckley DJ, Van Nausdle JA, Eck MP, Ching RP. Neural space and biomechanical integrity of the developing cervical spine in compression. Spine. 2007;32(6):E181-7. .

  13. Scifert JL, Sairyo K, Goel VK, Grobler LJ, Grosland NM, Spratt KF, Chesmel KD. Stability analysis of an enhanced load sharing posterior fixation device and its equivalent conventional device in a calf spine model. Spine. 1999;24(21):2206. .

  14. Seel EH, Davies EM. A biomechanical comparison of kyphoplasty using a balloon bone tamp versus an expand-able polymer bone tamp in a deer spine model. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89(2):253-7. .

  15. van Dijk M, Smit TH, Sugihara S, Burger EH, Wuisman PI. The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar inter-body fusion: An in vivo model using poly (l-lactic Acid) and titanium cages. Spine. 2002;27(7):682-8. .

  16. Wilcox RK, Allen DJ, Hall RM, Limb D, Barton DC, Dickson RA. A dynamic investigation of the burst fracture process using a combined experimental and finite element approach. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(6):481-8. .

  17. Sheng SR, Wang XY, Xu HZ, Zhu GQ, Zhou YF. Anatomy of large animal spines and its comparison to the human spine:A systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(1):46-56. .

  18. DiAngelo DJ, Hoyer DS, Chung CL. Biomechanical evaluation of a full-length (T12-S) synthetic lumbar spine model. MOJ App Bio Biomech. 2019;3(3):70-5. .

  19. Elmasry S, Asfour S, Gjolaj J, Latta LL, Eismont FJ, Travascio F, editors. Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture: A biomechanics analysis of three different fixation constructs. Summer Biomechanics, Bioengineering and Biotransport Conference; June 29-July 2; National Harbor, MD; 2016. .

  20. Elmasry S, Asfour S, Gjolaj J, Latta LL, Travascio F, Eismont FJ, editors. Changes in adjacent segment biomechanics after laminectomy and laminotomy in lumbar spine. Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting; Mar 28-31; Las Vegas, NV; 2015. .

  21. Elmasry S, Asfour S, Gjolaj J, Latta LL, Eismont FJ, Travascio F, editors. Implications of different fixation constructs for treating thoracolumbar burst fractures on adjacent lumbar spine levels: A finite element analysis. Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting; Mar 4-8; Lake Buena Vista, FL; 2016. .

  22. Gjolaj J, Hirsch B, Qureshi A, Latta L, Milne E, Kaimrajh D, Eismont FJ, editors. Biomechanical evaluation of lateral-access anterior instrumentation for thoracolumbar instability. Trans 63rd Orthop Research Soc; Mar 19-22; New Orleans, LA; 2017. .

  23. Norton R, Milne EL, Kaimrajh DN, Eismont F, Latta LL, editors. Biomechanics of short segment fixation in an unstable thoracolumbar flexion-distraction injury model: 6-screw construct with and without facet compression. Proc Orthop Trauma Assoc; Oct 3-6; Minneapolis, MN; 2012. .

  24. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disorders. 1992;5:390-90. .

  25. Ralph E, Gay B, Iharreborde L, Berglund K, Kai-Nan A, editors. The neutral zone in human lumbar spine sagittal plane motion: A compression of in vitro quasistatic and dynamic force displacement curves. ISB XXth Con-gress ASB 29th Annual Meeting; Jul 31-Aug 5; Cleve-land, OH; 2005. .

  26. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP, Lee B, Dunlap B. A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine. 1999;24(10): 1003-9. .

  27. Wang T, Ball JR, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR. Biomechanical evaluation of a biomimetic spinal construct. J Exp Orthop. 2014;1(1):3. .

Articles with similar content:

Pediatric Material Properties: A Review of Human Child and Animal Surrogates
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.35, 2007, issue 3-4
Sujanie Peiris, King H. Yang, Christina Huber, Melanie Franklyn
Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Demineralized Freeze-Dried Cancellous Block Allograft for Ridge Augmentation: A Pilot Study
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.26, 2016, issue 4
Leila Jabbareh, Hamid Reza Arab, Morteza Taheri, Reza Shahmohammadi, Amir Moeintaghavi, Farid Shiezadeh
Is Soft Tissue Laxity Associated with Tissue Metal Concentrations after Total Knee Arthroplasty?
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.28, 2018, issue 2
Christina Arnholt, Meredith Perkins, Anita L. Kerkhof, Steven M. Kurtz, Julie Lowell, William M. Mihalko, Daniel MacDonald
Cyclic Loads Do Not Compromise Functionality of the Interspinous Spacer or Cause Damage to the Spinal Segment: An In Vitro Analysis
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.18, 2008, issue 4
Lisa Ferrara, Amanesh Goyal, Ankit Mehta, David Dick, Vijay K. Goel, Suresh Reddy Chinthakunta
A New Design for Maximum Conformity of Total Knee Prosthesis to Femur and Tibia
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.26, 2016, issue 4
Ismail Hakki Korkmaz, Ömer S. Yildirim, İrfan Kaymaz