Biomechanical Behavior of a Biomimetic Artificial Intervertebral Disc

Broek, PR Peter van den; Huyghe, Jmrj Jacques; Ito, Keita

doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182326305

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Van der Broek et al (2012a) demonstrated that the Biomimetic Artificial Intervertebral Disc axial dynamic stiffness, for 0.01 Hz to 10 Hz range, was between 3.0 kN/mm to 4.7 kN/mm; this range was within the standard deviation range of the natural intervertebral disc tested by Smeathers and Joanes (1988). Alongside the variation in material properties, the differences between the dynamic stiffness of the intervertebral disc replacement studies (Benzel et al, 2011;Dahl et al, 2011;van den Broek et al, 2012a) and the present study are also a result of testing differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Viscoelastic properties of a spinal posterior dynamic stabilisation device

Lawless

Barnes

Espino

et al. 2016

Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to quantify the frequency dependent viscoelastic properties of two types of spinal posterior dynamic stabilisation devices. In air at 37°C, the viscoelastic properties of six BDyn 1 level, six BDyn 2 level posterior dynamic stabilisation devices (S14 Implants, Pessac, France) and its elastomeric components (polycarbonate urethane and silicone) were measured using Dynamic Mechanical Analysis. The viscoelastic properties were measured over the frequency range 0.01-30Hz. The BDyn devices and its components were viscoelastic throughout the frequency range tested. The mean storage stiffness and mean loss stiffness of the BDyn 1 level device, BDyn 2 level device, silicone component and polycarbonate urethane component all presented a logarithmic relationship with respect to frequency. The storage stiffness of the BDyn 1 level device ranged from 95.56N/mm to 119.29N/mm, while the BDyn 2 level storage stiffness ranged from 39.41N/mm to 42.82N/mm. BDyn 1 level device and BDyn 2 level device loss stiffness ranged from 10.72N/mm to 23.42N/mm and 4.26N/mm to 9.57N/mm, respectively. No resonant frequencies were recorded for the devices or its components. The elastic property of BDyn 1 level device is influenced by the PCU and silicone components, in the physiological frequency range. The viscoelastic properties calculated in this study may be compared to spinal devices and spinal structures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Viscoelastic properties of a spinal posterior dynamic stabilisation device

Lawless

Barnes

Espino

et al. 2016

Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nucleus replacement technology, available since the 90’ (PDN, Raymedica Inc., Minneapolis, USA), had good clinical results initially, followed by complications related to subsidence and extrusion. − As a result, many other implants have been created, ,,− only a few reaching the market, ,− and most are no longer in use. The reason is that although they achieve biomechanical restoration close to but not equal to an intact intervertebral disc, ,,,− extrusion and subsidence are not fully solved yet. ,,,, …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bionate Lumbar Disc Nucleus Prosthesis: Biomechanical Studies in Cadaveric Human Spines

Vanaclocha

Atienza

et al. 2022

ACS Omega

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design: cadaveric spine nucleus replacement study. Objective: determining Bionate 80A nucleus replacement biomechanics in cadaveric spines. Methods: in cold preserved spines, with ligaments and discs intact, and no muscles, L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 nucleus implantation was done. Differences between customized and overdimensioned implants were compared. Flexion, extension, lateral bending, and torsion were measured in the intact spine, nucleotomy, and nucleus implantation specimens. Increasing load or bending moment was applied four times at 2, 4, 6, and 8 Nm, twice in increasing mode and twice in decreasing mode. Spine motion was recorded using stereophotogrammetry. Expulsion tests: cyclic compression of 50–550 N for 50,000 cycles, increasing the load until there was extreme flexion, implant extrusion, or anatomical structure collapse. Subsidence tests were done by increasing the compression to 6000 N load. Results: nucleotomy increased the disc mobility, which remained unchanged for the adjacent upper level but increased for the lower adjacent one, particularly in lateral bending and torsion. Nucleus implantation, compared to nucleotomy, reduced disc mobility except in flexion-extension and torsion, but intact mobility was no longer recovered, with no effect on upper or lower adjacent segments. The overdimensioned implant, compared to the customized implant, provided equal or sometimes higher mobility. Lamina, facet joint, and annulus removal during nucleotomy caused more damaged than that restored by nucleus implantation. No implant extrusion was observed under compression loads of 925–1068 N as anatomical structures collapsed before. No subsidence or vertebral body fractures were observed under compression loads of 6697.8–6812.3 N. Conclusions: nucleotomized disc and L1-S1 mobility increased moderately after cadaveric spine nucleus implantation compared to the intact status, partly due to operative anatomical damage. Our implant had shallow expulsion and subsidence risks.

show abstract

“…Moving toward a consensus will greatly improve the ability to compare findings across studies and evaluate potential therapeutic strategies. 312,313 5 However, the following list of best practices was developed based on the scientific rationale summarized from the available literature for mechanical testing of motion segments.…”

Section: Conclusion From Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have developed over the past 50 years. During that time, there have been several paradigm shifts with respect to techniques. These techniques evolved by incorporating state-of-the-art engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure-function relationships, and the scientific method. Multiple parametric studies have focused on the effects that the experimental technique has on outcomes. As a result, testing methodologies have evolved, but there are no standard testing protocols, which makes the comparison of findings between experiments difficult and conclusions about in vivo performance challenging. In 2019, the international spine research community was surveyed to determine the consensus on spine biomechanical testing and if the consensus opinion was consistent with the scientific evidence. More than 80 responses to the survey were received. The findings of this survey confirmed that while some methods have been commonly adopted, not all are consistent with the scientific evidence. This review summarizes the scientific literature, the current consensus, and the authors' recommendations on best practices based on the compendium of available evidence.

show abstract

Biomechanical Behavior of a Biomimetic Artificial Intervertebral Disc

Abstract: A strong and durable AID design was introduced. Compared with current clinical articulating AIDs, this biomimetic AID introduces the natural disc annulus-nucleus structure, resulting in axial behavior closer to that of the natural disc.

Cited by 20 publications

References 39 publications

Viscoelastic properties of a spinal posterior dynamic stabilisation device

Viscoelastic properties of a spinal posterior dynamic stabilisation device

Bionate Lumbar Disc Nucleus Prosthesis: Biomechanical Studies in Cadaveric Human Spines

Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About