Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 2, 2025
A Mouse Model of Lumbar Spine Instability
Published on: April 23, 2021
Meta-analyses comparing spine simulators with cadavers and finite element models by analysing range-of-motion data
Tobias Bohn1,2, Susanne A J Lang1, Stephanie Roll3
1Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Background:
Range-of-motion (ROM) data generated by the in vitro test methods of spine simulators with cadavers (SSCs) and finite element models (FEMs) are used alternatively and complementarily for in vitro evaluations.
Aim Of Review:
Our purpose is to compare exemplary segmental ROM data from SSCs and FEMs before and after ball-and-socket total disc replacement (bsTDR) to determine whether the two test methods provide the same data for the same evaluation subjects.
Key Scientific Concepts Of Review:
We performed 70 meta-analyses (MAs) and 20 additional comparative analyses based on data from 21 SSC studies used for 39 MAs and 16 FEM studies used for 31 MAs. Only fifty-nine percent (n = 23/39) of SSC MAs show a restored ROM after bsTDR, whereas in FEM MAs, the ROM is restored in ninety percent (n = 28/31). Among the analyses comparing data from the same spinal segments, motion directions and bsTDR, SSC and FEM data are significantly different in ten percent (n = 2/20). According to our results, data generated by SSCs and FEMs cannot be used as alternative and complementary data without restriction. The quality of the evaluation methods itself as well as potential technical reasons for the discrepant results were not our evaluation target. Further SSC and FEM data should be compared using the same approach.
