title: A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Spinal systems that are currently available for correction of spinal deformities or degeneration such as lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease use components manufactured from stainless steel or titanium and typically comprise two spinal rods with associated connection devices (for example: DePuy Spines Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System). The Memory Metal Spinal System of this study consists of a single square spinal rod made of a nickel titanium alloy (Nitinol) used in conjunction with connecting transverse bridges and pedicle screws made of Ti-alloy. Nitinol is best known for its shape memory effect, but is also characterized by its higher flexibility when compared to either stainless steel or titanium. A higher fusion rate with less degeneration of adjacent segments may result because of the elastic properties of the memory metal. In addition, the use of a single, unilateral rod may be of great value for a TLIF procedure. Our objective is to evaluate the mechanical properties of the new Memory Metal Spinal System compared to the Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System.
  
  
  METHODS
  An in-vitro mechanical evaluation of the lumbar Memory Metal Spinal System was conducted. The test protocol followed ASTM Standard F1717-96, "Standard Test Methods for Static and Fatigue for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Corpectomy Model." 1. Static axial testing in a load to failure mode in compression bending, 2. Static testing in a load to failure mode in torsion, 3. Cyclical testing to estimate the maximum run out load value at 5.0 x 10^6 cycles.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the biomechanical testing for static axial compression bending there was no statistical difference between the 2% yield strength and the stiffness of the two types of spinal constructs. In axial compression bending fatigue testing, the Memory Metal Spinal System construct showed a 50% increase in fatigue life compared to the Titanium Moss Miami Spinal System. In static torsional testing the Memory Metal Spinal System constructs showed an average 220% increase in torsional yield strength, and an average 30% increase in torsional stiffness.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The in-vitro mechanical evaluation of the lumbar Memory Metal Spinal System showed good results when compared to a currently available spinal implant system. Throughout testing, the Memory Metal Spinal System showed no failures in static and dynamic fatigue.
authors.affiliation: Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700, RB Groningen, The Netherlands. a.g.veldhuizen@umcg.nl.
authors.forename: Dennis
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Kok
authors.forename: Paul John
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Firkins
authors.forename: Frits H
authors.initials: FH
authors.lastname: Wapstra
authors.forename: Albert G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Veldhuizen
mesh_terms: D000497:Alloys; D001863:Bone Screws; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000601:surgery*; D008422:Materials Testing; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D019919:Prosthesis Implantation / Q000295:instrumentation*; D013123:Spinal Fusion / Q000295:instrumentation*; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D014025:Titanium; D019415:Torque
chemical_list: D000497:Alloys; C013616:nitinol; D014025:Titanium
references.citation: Radiology. 1989 Jul;172(1):99-103
references.pmid: 2662259
references.citation: J Spinal Disord. 1992 Mar;5(1):39-49
references.pmid: 1571614
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988 Oct;13(10):1129-34
references.pmid: 3206270
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981 Jan-Feb;(154):74-82
references.pmid: 7471591
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jul 15;25(14):1843-7
references.pmid: 10888955
references.citation: Biomaterials. 1997 Aug;18(16):1115-20
references.pmid: 9247349
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 1953 Mar;10(2):154-68
references.pmid: 13035484
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jun 15;36(14):E904-13
references.pmid: 21217429
references.citation: J Spinal Disord. 1993 Apr;6(2):99-105
references.pmid: 8504234
references.citation: Radiology. 1993 Dec;189(3):775-8
references.pmid: 8234703
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Dec;18(16):2471-9
references.pmid: 8303451
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1963;27:51-77
references.pmid: 14021789
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Jul 15;23(14):1550-8
references.pmid: 9682311
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Sep;9(6):574-81
references.pmid: 6495027
references.citation: Am J Orthod. 1980 Nov;78(5):528-37
references.pmid: 7001907
references.citation: Int J Artif Organs. 1988 Nov;11(6):487-92
references.pmid: 3203977
references.citation: Invest Radiol. 1988 Apr;23(4):294-300
references.pmid: 3286574
references.citation: Med Eng Phys. 1997 Mar;19(2):171-9
references.pmid: 9203152