LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Spine/Barrow Neurological Institute Wins Best Basic Science Award
Spine

Barrow Neurological Institute Wins Best Basic Science Award

May 11, 2017 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Barrow Neurological Institute Wins Best Basic Science Award
Courtesy of Barrow Neurological Institute
Secondary

Researchers from the Spinal Biomechanics Lab at Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) in Phoenix, Arizona, walked away with the Best Basic Science Award at the recent meeting of the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.

With an eye toward expanding the existing kinematic data, the scientists set out to explore the relationship between things such as subject’s height, bone mineral density, flexibility, etc.

Anna Newcomb, M.S. is a research engineer at Barrow and a co-author on the unpublished work, “Variations among Human Spine Segments and their Relationships to in vitro Kinematics: A Retrospective Analysis of Experimental Data Including 282 Lumbar Motion Segments from 85 Donor Spines.” Newcomb’s collaborators on the project were Jennifer Lehrman, M.S., Brian Kelly, Ph.D., and Neil Crawford, Ph.D.

The authors told OTW, “The Spinal Biomechanics lab at BNI has produced and published data from a large number of in vitro studies over the past 20+ years. Each study has had a unique focus, but all have involved the same test methodology (which originated in the lab) and testing of intact cadaveric spine segments obtained from tissue banks to generate baseline values of normal spine flexibility. The setup phase of this retrospective analysis involved the creation and management of baseline information that was collected from these studies.”

Newcomb commented to OTW, “This study was actually conceived while gathering information from published studies involving finite element (FE) models of the spine. Some published studies have configured their computer model’s behavior to mimic experimental behavior seen in limited data sets or matching averages behavior from meta-data collected using a large number of samples but inconsistent methods. We realized we have an unusually large store of data with very well controlled methods. Our experimental data set, which has been collected from a large number of ‘normal’ cadaveric spines and over a long period of time, provides valuable information to the field of spinal biomechanics, including computational modeling.”

The authors wrote, “General spine tissue donor information (age, gender, height) was obtained from medical histories provided by tissue banks. Vertebral body heights, disc heights, and bone mineral densities (BMD) were obtained from X-rays and DEXA scans of the dissected spines. Kinematic data was retrieved from studies involving intact testing of the fresh frozen lumbar spine segments (L1 through S), with all tests performed in the same lab and using the same methods…”

“There were significant negative correlations between ROM [range of motion] and subject height and ROM and disc height. Other significant correlations with ROM include: donor age [Ax Rot: R=0.243, P< 0.001], BMD [all directions: R< -0.16, P< 0.007], and vertebral body height [FL-EX: R=0.186, P=0.006, and Lat Bend: R=0.136, P=0.046]. There were no relationships between ROM and donor age during FL-EX (R=-0.016, P=0.791) or Lat Bend (R=0.023, P=0.700). Similarly, there was no correlation between ROM and body height during Ax Rot (R=0.094, P=0.170).”

Newcomb told OTW, “The main message to spine surgeons is that this study revealed that differences in areas such as gender, age, bone mineral density, disc height and vertebral body height can lead to significant differences in kinematic behaviors of the spine, and computational models that don’t take this into account may be limited.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy