Background: Often after large animal experiments in spinal research, the question arises-histology or biomechanics? While biomechanics are essential for informed decisions on the functionality of the therapy being studied, scientists often choose histological analysis alone. For biomechanical testing, for example, flexibility, specimens must be shipped to institutions with special testing equipment, as spine testers are complex and immobile. The specimens must usually be shipped frozen, and, thus, biological and histological investigations are not possible anymore.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground Context: In contrast to cervical discectomy and fusion, total disc replacement (TDR) aims at preserving the motion at the treated vertebral level. Spinal motion is commonly evaluated with the range of motion (ROM). However, more qualitative information about cervical kinematics before and after TDR is still lacking.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNeutral zone (NZ) is an important biomechanical parameter when evaluating spinal instability following destabilizing and restabilizing events, with particular relevance for implant efficacy testing. It remains unclear what NZ calculation methods are most sensitive at capturing NZ changes across treatment conditions and a direct comparison is needed. The purpose of this study was to determine the most sensitive method at quantifying instability in human spines.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPurpose: Prevention of implant subsidence in osteoporotic (thoraco)lumbar spines is still a major challenge in spinal surgery. In this study, a new biomechanical in vitro test method was developed to simulate patient activities in order to determine the subsidence risk of vertebral body replacements during physiologic loading conditions.
Methods: The study included 12 (thoraco)lumbar (T11-L1, L2-L4) human specimens.