BIOMECHANICS RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND INNOVATION

Ground truth,
applied.

Computational modeling, physical testing, surgical workshops, and device development in one lab, with evidence across all four domains, from in silico to in vivo. Validated models return results in hours and are trusted by regulators, clinicians, and device manufacturers across the innovation lifecycle.

On-axis RoM · cadaveric vs FEA · 7.5 N·m
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 range of motion (°) NC AR LB NC AR LB Male Female agreement ≤ 0.05°
Sample validated model: sacroiliac-joint range of motion.
20+
Regulatory authorizations (510(k), De Novo, PMA) supported by our biomechanical evidence.
50+
Peer-reviewed publications.
200+
Invited presentations, lectures, and seminars.
30+
Device-manufacturer partnerships across the field.
2
Acquisitions informed by our due-diligence evidence.
ISO/IEC 17025
The international standard our testing is held to.
What we do

One lab, three ways.

Evidence

Biomechanical data across four cross-validated domains, from computational models to clinical results.

The four domains →
Surgical workshops

Device workshops, usability evaluation, and cadaveric technique work in our surgical wet lab, 30 minutes from DFW.

Explore the lab →
Development

Devices, instruments, and surgical techniques designed and optimized from the evidence generated.

Explore development →
VALIDATED LIBRARY

Results in hours, not months.

Computational tools and models, validated one-to-one against their composite, cadaveric, and clinical counterparts. When your study fits one, the specimen work is already done, and testing your next design is computation, not another study.

01 Match to a validated model. Ready to run.
02 Upload geometry or imaging. Device CAD for mechanical performance, or patient CT for clinical measurement.
03 Results in hours. Delivered with the validation record behind them.
The evidence

Biomechanical evidence, generated and validated.

Across the musculoskeletal system and every specialty our published work reaches. Every result across the four domains is validated and produced in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025.

Four domains, cross-validated

Sequence  Cross-validation

Ground truth In silico Computational In vitro Composite In situ Cadaveric In vivo Clinical Ground truth In silico Computational In vitro Composite In situ Cadaveric In vivo Clinical
Finite element analysis of a femur showing von Mises stress distribution
In silico · Computational

Validate once. Iterate forever.

Digital twins of physical models, validated against the source: in vitro, in situ, or in vivo, depending on the experiment. Many already validated and ready to run. Custom validated models built to order. Once a model is validated, testing the next design, technique, or anatomy runs in software. Upload a device and imaging, and we return results.

Start a project
Custom drop-weight test setup: modular cage with potted bone model and cable-driven compressive loading
In vitro · Composite

Repeatable, at any volume.

Non-cadaveric testing on synthetic bone, metal, and other analogs gives high-volume, repeatable mechanical evaluation. Validated against in situ and in vivo evidence, so synthetic results map to real tissue and real physiology.

Start a project
Cadaveric pelvis instrumented with optical tracking markers in a custom aluminum test frame
In situ · Cadaveric

Bespoke science. Standardized protocols.

Human cadaveric biomechanics is the highest-fidelity physical model there is. Custom models designed for novel devices with no existing standard. Regulatory protocols are tightly controlled and standardized across all devices, so results are comparable from device to device and submission to submission. Validated against in vivo evidence.

Start a project
Shoulder X-ray image
In vivo · Clinical

Proof, in living physiology.

Biomechanical validation in the living. It spans motion and kinematics, load and stress transfer, fixation and migration, fusion, alignment, and the full range of a device's behavior in the body, as measured by clinical imaging and follow-up. In vivo evidence is what the other three domains are ultimately checked against.

Start a project
How engagements run

New studies start in days.

When your device needs a model that doesn't exist yet, or physical testing, we start in days.

01A contract and a start date. 
02Fixed scope, fixed deliverable.
03Licensed professional engineers run every study.
04No sponsored research agreement, no tech transfer negotiation, no committee queue.
Across the lifecycle

Evidence for every decision.

The same evidence supports decisions from first design through post-market. One source, across the innovation lifecycle.

01Research & Development
02Regulatory authorization
03Marketing claims
04Litigation defense
05Clinical trials
06Post-market evidence
Our work, in the record

Peer-reviewed, and presented widely.

Validated biomechanical evidence across musculoskeletal specialties, from cadaveric and computational studies through clinical results. Peer-reviewed, and presented at the field's major meetings.

2026
Sacroiliac Joint Fixation With a Posterior Intra-Articular Implant Versus a Posterolateral Transiliac Implant: A Biomechanical Comparison
N Am Spine Soc J · 26:100871
2025
Biomechanical Restoration in Unilateral Facet Arthroplasty: A Cadaveric Evaluation
N Am Spine Soc J · 23:100766
2025
Fixation of the Sacroiliac Joint: A Cadaver-Based Concurrent-Controlled Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Interposition and Posterolateral Transosseous Techniques
Neurospine · 22(1):185-193
2024
The Effect of Body Weight on Interfragmentary Fracture Strain in Plate Fixation of Distal Femur Fractures: A Finite Element Analysis
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res · 110(6):103868
2024
Femoral Interference Screw Divergence as a Result of Anteromedial Portal Insertion and Outside-In FlipCutter Femoral Tunnel Drilling: A Cadaveric Study
J Orthop · 52:138-142
2023
Spinolaminar Locking Plates Improve Fixation Strength Compared to Pedicle Screws: A Biomechanical Analysis
Spine Deform · 11(6):1335-1345
2022
Pelvic Stability During Simulated Total Hip Arthroplasty Motions: Comparing Different Hip Positioners
J Orthop · 34:398-403
The team

The engineers behind the work.

A team of engineers and scientists generating biomechanical evidence, led by its founders, Jeremi Leasure and Richard Raji, whose backgrounds span computational and physical biomechanics.

Portrait of Jeremi M. Leasure, Co-Founder and CEO of MDevDev Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Jeremi M. Leasure

A licensed professional engineer, Jeremi holds a master's in mechanical engineering from Drexel University and a bachelor's in mechanical engineering from Temple University, with research fellowships in orthopaedic biomechanics at the University of Tübingen and in clinical orthopaedics through the San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program. He has led engineering at Aurora Spine, Benvenue Medical, and Stress Engineering Services.

Portrait of Richard O. Raji, Co-Founder and CTO of MDevDev Co-Founder & Chief Technology Officer

Richard O. Raji

A licensed professional engineer, Richard holds a master's in bioengineering from UC Berkeley and a bachelor's in mechanical engineering from Afe Babalola University, with doctoral work in translational health sciences at George Washington University. He has directed orthopaedic research programs at UCSF Health (Stanyan Hospital) and Dignity Health (St. Mary's Hospital), and led Hyperloop stability-subsystem design and simulation at UC Berkeley.

Recognition
Spine Section & Research Award nominationsAAOS · 2024
Spine Section & Research Award nominationsORS · 2023, 2024
Best New Technology in SpineOrthopedics This Week / NASS · 2022
Business Innovation Award, FinalistORS · 2018, 2019
P30 Young Investigator Slam, FinalistUCSF Orthopedics · 2019
Research AwardCalifornia Orthopaedic Association · 2015
Whitecloud AwardScoliosis Research Society · 2014
Healthcare Value Award, NomineeNASS · 2014
Innovation AwardMaterialise World Summit · 2013
From the lab

In the field, and in the record.

Read the newsroom
Regulatory authorizationWenzel · 2025
panaSIa, first expandable posterior SI-fusion device
Cleared on our cadaveric and computational biomechanical evidence.
Regulatory authorizationSpinal Simplicity · 2025
Patriot SI, guided posterior SI implant
Cleared on our standalone biomechanical evidence.
PublicationNeurospine · 2025
Titanium interbody cages under impaction
An in vitro model of mass and surface-topography loss in 3D-printed spinal cages.
Regulatory authorizationNevro · 2024
Nevro V1, integrated sacroiliac fixation
Cleared on our standalone evidence, part of Nevro's acquisition of Vyrsa.
PublicationJ Am Acad Orthop Surg · 2024
Thermal damage in orthopaedics
A review of heat generation and bone injury across orthopedic procedures.
PublicationJ Orthop · 2024
Follow-up and outcomes after hip-fracture surgery
How a missed first post-operative visit drives 90-day complications and readmission.
PublicationSpine · 2023
A decade of lumbar interbody-cage failures
A study of device failures reported to the FDA MAUDE database.
PublicationJ Pain Res · 2023
Interspinous fusion device, REFINE study
Six-month functional outcomes in low-back-pain patients.
PresentationEur Orthop Research Soc · 2023
Acetabular fracture contact mechanics
A biomechanical analysis of fracture displacement and joint contact pressure.

Get our research in your inbox.

Method explainers, study releases, and regulatory commentary, engineer to engineer.