Display options
Cite
Tsantrizos A, Ordway NR, Myint K, et al. Mechanical and biomechanical characterization of a polyurethane nucleus replacement device injected and cured in situ within a balloon. SAS J. 2008;2(1):28-39doi: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0113-RR.
Tsantrizos, A., Ordway, N. R., Myint, K., Martz, E., & Yuan, H. A. (2008). Mechanical and biomechanical characterization of a polyurethane nucleus replacement device injected and cured in situ within a balloon. SAS journal, 2(1), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2007-0113-RR
Tsantrizos, Anthony, et al. "Mechanical and biomechanical characterization of a polyurethane nucleus replacement device injected and cured in situ within a balloon." SAS journal vol. 2,1 (2008): 28-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2007-0113-RR
Tsantrizos A, Ordway NR, Myint K, Martz E, Yuan HA. Mechanical and biomechanical characterization of a polyurethane nucleus replacement device injected and cured in situ within a balloon. SAS J. 2008 Mar 01;2(1):28-39. doi: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0113-RR. eCollection 2008. PMID: 25802599; PMCID: PMC4365654.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

SAS J. 2008 Mar 01;2(1):28-39. doi: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0113-RR. eCollection 2008.

Mechanical and biomechanical characterization of a polyurethane nucleus replacement device injected and cured in situ within a balloon.

SAS journal

Anthony Tsantrizos, Nathaniel R Ordway, Khin Myint, Erik Martz, Hansen A Yuan

Affiliations

  1. Disc Dynamics, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York.

PMID: 25802599 PMCID: PMC4365654 DOI: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0113-RR

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The DASCOR device has recently been introduced as an innovative nucleus replacement alternative for the treatment of low-back pain caused by degenerative intervertebral disc disease. The purpose of this study was to characterize, through a series of preclinical mechanical bench and biomechanical tests, the effectiveness of this device.

METHODS: A number of samples were created using similar preparation methods in order to characterize the nucleus replacement device in multiple mechanical bench tests, using ASTM-guided protocols, where appropriate. Mechanical bench testing included static testing to characterize the device's compressive, shear properties, and fatigue testing to determine the device's compressive fatigue strength, wear, and durability. Biomechanical testing, using human cadaveric lumbar spines, was also conducted to determine the ability of the device to restore multidirectional segmental flexibility and to determine its resulting endplate contact stress.

RESULTS: The static compressive and shear moduli of the nucleus replacement device were determined to be between 4.2-5.6 MPa and 1.4-1.9 MPa, respectively. Similarly, the ultimate compressive and shear strength were 12,400 N and 6,993 N, respectively. The maximum axial compressive fatigue strength of the tested device that was able to withstand a runout without failure was determined to be approximately 3 MPa. The wear assessment determined that the device is durable and yielded minimal wear rates of 0.29mg/Mc. Finally, the biomechanical testing demonstrated that the device can restore the multidirectional segmental flexibility to a level seen in the intact condition while concurrently producing a uniform endplate contact stress.

CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study provided a mechanical justification supporting the clinical use of the nucleus replacement device and also help explain and support the positive clinical results obtained from two European studies and one US pilot study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nucleus replacement devices are rapidly emerging to address specific conditions of degenerative disc disease. Preclinical testing of such devices is paramount in order to potentially ensure successful clinical outcomes post implantation.

Keywords: Nucleus replacement implant; biomechanics; lumbar intervertebral disc

References

  1. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001 Aug;16(7):560-5 - PubMed
  2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986 Jul-Aug;11(6):650-3 - PubMed
  3. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1970;1:1-40 - PubMed
  4. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Feb 15;25(4):487-92 - PubMed
  5. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;63(5):475-83 - PubMed
  6. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1999 Mar;14(3):203-16 - PubMed
  7. J Orthop Res. 1989;7(1):122-31 - PubMed
  8. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1999 Jul;14(6):384-8 - PubMed
  9. Acta Orthop Scand. 1965;36(4):418-34 - PubMed
  10. Ergonomics. 1993 Apr;36(4):415-34 - PubMed
  11. J Arthroplasty. 2002 Aug;17(5):649-61 - PubMed
  12. Med Prog Technol. 1982;9(1):1-16 - PubMed
  13. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972 Apr;54(3):492-510 - PubMed
  14. Eur Spine J. 2002 Oct;11 Suppl 2:S170-8 - PubMed
  15. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154-9 - PubMed
  16. Eur Spine J. 1997;6(6):385-9 - PubMed
  17. SAS J. 2007 Feb 01;1(1):36-45 - PubMed
  18. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2129-37 - PubMed
  19. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1980 Jan-Feb;5(1):46-55 - PubMed
  20. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001 Mar;12(3):207-13 - PubMed
  21. Eur Spine J. 2002 Oct;11 Suppl 2:S149-53 - PubMed
  22. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Nov;78(6):965-72 - PubMed
  23. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Nov 15;31(24):2790-6; discussion 2797 - PubMed
  24. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964 Jul;46:1077-92 - PubMed
  25. Acta Orthop Scand. 1965;35:314-28 - PubMed
  26. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 15;28(20):S186-94 - PubMed
  27. J Spinal Disord. 1992 Dec;5(4):390-6; discussion 397 - PubMed
  28. Surg Forum. 1958;9:762-5 - PubMed

Publication Types