Abstract
Lower back pain (LBP) is a worldwide clinical problem and a prominent area for research. Numerous in vitro biomechanical studies on spine specimens have been undertaken, attempting to understand spinal response to loading and possible factors contributing to LBP. However, despite employing similar testing protocols, there are challenges in replicating in vivo conditions and significant variations in published results. The aim of this study was to use the University of Bath (UoB) spine simulator to perform tests to highlight the major limitations associated with six degree of freedom (DOF) dynamic spine testing.
A steel helical spring was used as a validation model and was potted in Wood's metal. Six porcine lumbar spinal motion segments were harvested and dissected to produce isolated spinal disc specimens. These were potted in Wood's metal, ensuring the midplane of the disc remained horizontal and then sprayed with 0.9% saline and wrapped in saline-soaked tissue and plastic wrap to prevent dehydration. A 400N axial preload was used for spinal specimens. Specimens were tested under the stiffness and flexibility protocols.
Tests were performed using the UoB custom 6-axis spine simulator with coordinate axes. Tests comprised five cycles with data acquired at 100Hz. Stiffness and flexibility matrices were evaluated from the last three motion cycles using the linear least squares method.
According to theory, inverted flexibility matrices should equal stiffness matrices. In the case of the spring, the matrices matched analytical solutions and inverted flexibility matrices were equivalent to stiffness matrices. Matrices from the spinal tests demonstrated some symmetry, with similarities between inverted flexibility- and stiffness matrices, though these were unequal overall. Matrix element values were significantly affected by displacements assumed to occur at disc centre.
Spring tests proved that for linear, elastic specimens, the spine simulator functioned as expected. However, multiple factors limit the confidence in spine test results. Centre of rotation, displacement assumptions and rigid body transformations are known to impact the results from spinal testing, and these should be addressed going forward to improve the replication of in vivo conditions.
