Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Develop a methodology to assess the long term mechanical behavior of intervertebral discs by utilizing novel sequential state testing.
Methods
Bovine functional spinal units were sequentially mechanically tested in (1) native (n=8), (2) degenerated (n=4), and (3) treated states (n=4). At stage (2), artificial degeneration was created using rapid enzymatic degeneration, followed by a 24 hour hold period under static load at 42°C. At stage (3), nucleus augmentation treatments were injected with a hydrogel or a ‘sham’ (water, chondroitin sulfate) injection. The mechanical protocol employed applied a static load hold period followed by cyclic compressive loading between ∼350 and 750 N at 1 Hz. 1000 cycles were applied at each stage, and the final test on each specimen was extended up to 20000 cycles. To verify if test time can be reduced, functions were fitted using stiffness data up to 100, 1000, 2500, 5000, 10000 and 20000 cycles. Linear regression for the native specimens comparing the stiffness at various cycles to the stiffness at 20000 cycles was completed.
Results
Independent of the disc state, as the number of cycles increased, the hysteresis decreased and the stiffness increased. The degenerated specimen stiffness was greater than the healthy and treated stiffness and the degenerate hysteresis loops were smaller. A mathematical model was found to successfully predict the high cycle behaviour of the disc reaching a root mean squared (RMS) error below 10% when using 5000 or more cycles. The linear regression gave a RMS error below 7.5% at 1000 cycles.
Conclusions
A method was developed to consistently determine intervertebral disc mechanics through sequential testing. A shortened cyclic testing period was shown to be viable as a method to reduce preliminary test time for novel hydrogels, compared to currently literature. The methodology permits rapid preliminary assessment of intervertebral disc mechanics and treatments.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
