Advancing Thoracic Spine Biomechanical Research

Links

Abstract

The long term objective of this research was to elucidate issues with current thoracic spine testing methods and develop more accurate ways to quantify the biomechanical impact of surgical procedures or medical devices. The ability to perform thoracic spine testing with a rib cage is limited by test machine variability and experimental design inconsistency, so surgeons are left with little reliable information on the biomechanical impacts of procedures and implants. This research sought to validate a novel spine test machine, provide biomechanical data to support the inclusion of an intact rib cage when testing the thoracic spine, and quantify the biomechanical impacts of sequential Ponte osteotomies.

Specific Aim 1 validated the accuracy of the spine test machine for rigidity ranges that represent cadaveric specimen rigidities present in the spine. Cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine specimens were modeled with synthetic rubber that represented the breadth of rigidities, and testing was conducted in bending and axial rotation. The maximum machine displacement error was less than 2° for lumbar and thoracic specimens, so it is suggested that researchers use an external motion-tracking system in conjunction with the test machine when high accuracy measurements are required.

Specific Aim 2 quantified the biomechanical differences of testing full cadaveric thoracic spine specimens with and without an intact rib cage. While it was presumed that the rib cage provides structural stability to the thoracic spine, the extent to which the rib cage contributes to spinal motion had not been fully quantified. Testing quantified the motion and stiffness values of an intact thoracic spine specimen, and results showed that testing without a rib cage changes both motion and stiffness values.

Specific Aim 3 quantified the biomechanical impact of sequential Ponte osteotomies in cadaveric thoracic spine specimens with intact rib cages. Overall and regional changes in motion due to Ponte osteotomies were analyzed, and results showed increased flexibility in the sagittal plane on both overall and regional levels.

The results from this work could provide researchers and surgeons the tools they need to better understand and improve spine procedures and implants, which could ultimately improve the quality of life for patients.

Cited Works (13)

Year	Entry
2005	Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, Eastell R, Genant H, Grauer A, Cahall DL; IMPACT Study Group. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res. April 2005;20(4):557-563.
1974	Andriacchi T, Schultz A, Belytschko T, Galante J. A model for studies of mechanical interactions between the human spine and rib cage. J Biomech. November 1974;7(6):497-507.
1999	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. May 15, 1999;24(10):1003-1009.
2000	Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Ghanayem AJ, Diener H, Meade KP, Dunlap B, Hodges SD. Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load. Spine. June 15, 2000;25(12):1548-1554.
2004	Goertzen DJ, Lane C, Oxland TR. Neutral zone and range of motion in the spine are greater with stepwise loading than with a continuous loading protocol: an in vitro porcine investigation. J Biomech. February 2004;37(2):257-261.
1984	Goel VK, Clark CR, McGowan D, Goyal S. An in-vitro study of the kinematics of the normal, injured and stabilized cervical spine. J Biomech. 1984;17(5):363-376.
1991	Shea M, Edwards WT, White AA, Hayes WC. Variations of stiffness and strength along the human cervical-spine. J Biomech. 1991;24(2):95-107.
1991	Myers BS, McElhaney JH, Doherty BJ. The viscoelastic responses of the human cervical spine in torsion: experimental limitations of quasi-linear theory, and a method for reducing these effects. J Biomech. 1991;24(9):811-817.
1992	Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine, II: neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord. December 1992;5(4):390-396.
1993	Melton LJ III, Lane AW, Cooper C, Eastell R, O'Fallon WM, Riggs BL. Prevalence and incidence of vertebral deformities. Osteoporos Int. May 1993;3(3):113-119.
1976	Panjabi MM, Brand RA Jr, White AA III. Three-dimensional flexibility and stiffness properties of the human thoracic spine. J Biomech. 1976;9(4):185-192.
1981	Panjabi MM, Krag MH, Goel VK. A technique for measurement and description of three-dimensional six degree-of-freedom motion of a body joint with an application to the human spine. J Biomech. 1981;14(7):447-460.
1982	Panjabi MM, Goel VK, Takata K. Physiologic strains in the lumbar spinal ligaments: an in vitro biomechanical study. Spine. May 1982;7(3):192-203.

Cited By (1)

Year	Entry
2020	Sherrill JT. Advancing the Biomechanical Understanding of the Cervicothoracic Junction of the Human Spine [PhD thesis]. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; 2020.