Workshop Articles   |    
Test Protocols for Evaluation of Spinal Implants
Vijay K. Goel, PhD; Manohar M. Panjabi, PhD; Avinash G. Patwardhan, PhD; Andrew P. Dooris, PhD; Hassan Serhan, PhD
View Disclosures and Other Information
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2006 Apr 01;88(suppl 2):103-109. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01363
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case


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.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org


    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    Pennsylvania - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
    Oklahoma - The University of Oklahoma
    S. Carolina - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Univerity of South Carlonina
    California - UCLA/OH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery