Abstract
Back pain is a significant socio-economic problem affecting around 80% of the population at some point during their lives. Chronic back pain leads to millions of days of work absence per year, posing a burden to health services around the world. In order to assess surgical interventions, such as disc replacements and spinal instrumentations, to treat chronic back pain it is important to understand the biomechanics of the spine and the intervertebral disc (IVD). A wide range of testing protocols, machines and parameters are employed to characterise the IVD, making it difficult to compare data across laboratories.
The aim of this study was to compare the two most commonly used testing protocols in the literature: the stiffness and the flexibility protocols, and determine if they produce the same data when testing porcine specimens in six degrees of freedom under the same testing conditions. In theory, the stiffness and the flexibility protocols should produce equivalent data, however, no detailed comparison study is available in the literature for the IVD, which is a very complex composite structure.
Tests were performed using the unique six axis simulator at the University of Bath on twelve porcine lumbar functional spinal unit (FSU) specimens at 0.1 Hz under 400 N preload. The specimens were divided in two groups of six and each group was tested using one of the two testing protocols. To ensure the same conditions were used, tests were firstly carried out using the stiffness protocol, and the equivalent loading amplitudes were then applied using the flexibility protocol.
The results from the two protocols were analysed to produce load-displacement graphs and stiffness matrices. The load-displacement graphs of the translational axes show that the stiffness protocol produces less spread between specimens than the flexibility protocol. However, for the rotational axes there is a large variability between specimens in both protocols. Additionally, a comparison was made between the six main diagonal terms of the stiffness matrices using the Mann-Whitney test, since the data was not normally distributed. No statistically significant difference was found between the stiffness terms produced by each protocol. However, overall the stiffness protocol generally produced larger stiffnesses and less variation between specimens.
This study has shown that when testing porcine FSU specimens at 0.1 Hz and 400 N preload, there is no statistically significant difference between the main diagonal stiffness terms produced by the stiffness and the flexibility protocols. This is an important result, because it means that at this specific testing condition, using the same testing parameters and environment, both the stiffness and flexibility methods can be used to characterise the behaviour of the spine, and the results can be compared across the two protocols. Future work should investigate if the same findings occur at other testing conditions.
