Letter to the editor in response to Villa T, La Barbera L, Galbusera F, “Comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems”

Abstract

We were interested to read the recent article by Villa et al. [ [1] Villa T. La Barbera L. Galbusera F. Comparison of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems. Spine J. 2014; 14: 695-704 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar ], in which the authors used finite element analysis to calculate stresses in a spinal fixation system when tested using International Organization for Standardization (18192) and American Society for Testing and Materials international (ASTM F1717) standards. The authors recommended that the ASTM standard should be avoided or changed to add an anterior support mechanism and specify a testing load. On behalf of the ASTM subcommittee responsible for this standard, we would like to respond and offer clarification. Reply to the letter to the editor entitled: Response to “Comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems”The Spine JournalVol. 14Issue 12PreviewFirst, we would like to thank the researchers from American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) subcommittee who replied to our study and the editor of The Spine Journal who gave the opportunity for a debate to arise on the actual appropriateness of experimental procedures for the preclinical testing of posterior spinal fixation systems. We strongly believe that this debate needs to be disseminated, as these procedures are the only way to assess the mechanical reliability of the devices before clinical usage and few results are still available in literature dealing with this subject. Full-Text PDF