The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
TEST PROTOCOLS FOR EVALUATION OF SPINAL IMPLANTS
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Are Sheep Spines a Valid Biomechanical Model for Human Spines?
Wilke, H.-J., Kettler, A., & Claes, L. E. (1997) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199710150-00009 · Cited by 455
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- 2003, Spine J, 3, 19, 10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00443-6 · doi:10.1016/s1529-9430(02)00443-6
- 1995, Spine, 20, 2565, 10.1097/00007632-199512000-00016 · doi:10.1097/00007632-199512000-00016
- 2000, Spine, 25, 1077, 10.1097/00007632-200005010-00007 · doi:10.1097/00007632-200005010-00007
- 1988, Spine, 13, 1129, 10.1097/00007632-198810000-00013 · doi:10.1097/00007632-198810000-00013
- 2003, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 85, 1749, 10.2106/00004623-200309000-00014 · doi:10.2106/00004623-200309000-00014
- 2005, Spine, 30, 2755, 10.1097/01.brs.0000195897.17277.67 · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000195897.17277.67
Cited by
Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine
Busscher, I., Ploegmakers, J. J. W., Verkerke, G. J., & Veldhuizen, A. G. (2010) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1326-9 · Cited by 295
Metadata
- Authors
- GOEL, V. K., PANJABI, M. M., PATWARDHAN, A. G., DOORIS, A. P., & SERHAN, H.
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- suppl_2
- Pages
- 103-109
- ISSN
- 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2161831882
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: TEST PROTOCOLS FOR EVALUATION OF SPINAL IMPLANTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/00004623-200604002-00021
- The paper
- GOEL, V. K., PANJABI, M. M., PATWARDHAN, A. G., DOORIS, A. P., & SERHAN, H. (2006). TEST PROTOCOLS FOR EVALUATION OF SPINAL IMPLANTS. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200604002-00021
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.