Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-12
The Application of a Multi-Material Flexible Chain Mail for the Design of an Artificial Spinal Disc to Reproduce Natural Nonlinear and Anisotropic Rotational Behavior
Inspired by the potential of architected materials for achieving biomimicking functionalities and the advancement of multi-material additive manufacturing to fabricate parts with complex structures and heterogeneous material distributions, this study investigates the feasibility of using a multi-material, flexible chain mail sheet for the design of an additively manufactured artificial spinal disc for reproducing patient-specific anisotropic and nonlinear rotational behaviors. The application of a chain mail-based structure is motivated by its similarities in behaviors compared with a natural disc's fiber network that likewise has negligible bending stiffness and shape-changing ability. The proposed approach for the chain mail sheet design includes an initial characterization of the uniaxial tensile responses of the chain mail unit cell defined as the basic building block of the chain mail sheet, modeling and response calculation, and material optimization. Results show that the additively manufactured chain mail sheet is not only able to exhibit a natural strain-stiffening rotational response but also is able to reproduce natural anisotropy of three natural disc specimens in the six most common rotational scenarios in daily life. This study shows the potential of additively manufactured mechanical-metamaterials-inspired structures for implant design to restore natural mechanics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClarkS, HortonR. Low back pain: a major global challenge. Lancet, 2018; 391:2302.
2.
De SchepperEIT, DamenJ, Van MeursJBJ, et al.The association between lumbar disc degeneration and low back pain: the influence of age, gender, and individual radiographic features. Spine, 2010; 35:531–536.
3.
HumzahMD, SoamesRW. Human intervertebral disc: structure and function. Anat Rec, 1988; 220:337–356.
4.
ZiglerJ, GornetMF, FerkoN, et al.Comparison of lumbar total disc replacement with surgical spinal fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of 5-year outcomes from randomized controlled trials. Glob Spine J, 2018; 8:413–423.
5.
RousseauMA, BradfordDS, BertagnoliR, et al.Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J, 2006; 6:258–266.
CostiJJ, FreemanBJC, ElliottDM. Intervertebral disc properties: challenges for biodevices. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2011; 8:357–376.
8.
ParkCK, RyuKS, JeeWH. Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: minimum two-year follow-up. Spine, 2008; 33:1755–1761.
9.
BotolinS, PuttlitzC, BaldiniT, et al.Facet joint biomechanics at the treated and adjacent levels after total disc replacement. Spine, 2011; 36:27–32.
ZanderT, RohlmannA, BergmannG. Influence of different artificial disc kinematics on spine biomechanics. Clin Biomech, 2009; 24:135–142.
12.
DemetropoulosCK, SenguptaDK, KnaubMA, et al.Biomechanical evaluation of the kinematics of the cadaver lumbar spine following disc replacement with the prodisc-L prosthesis. Spine, 2010; 35:26–31.
13.
BowdenAE, GuerinHL, VillarragaML, et al.Quality of motion considerations in numerical analysis of motion restoring implants of the spine. Clin Biomech, 2008; 23:536–544.
14.
ShikinamiY, KotaniY, CunninghamBW, et al.A biomimetic artificial disc with improved mechanical properties compared to biological interverteral discs. Adv Funct Mater, 2004; 14:1039–1046.
15.
PatwardhanAG, HaveyRM. Prosthesis design influences segmental contribution to total cervical motion after cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J, 2020; 29:2713–2721.
16.
GuerinHL, ElliottDM. Quantifying the contributions of structure to annulus fibrosus mechanical function using a nonlinear, anisotropic, hyperelastic model. J Orthop Res, 2007; 25:508–516.
17.
AyturkUM, GarciaJJ, PuttlitzCM. The micromechanical role of the annulus fibrosus components under physiological loading of the lumbar spine. J Biomech Eng, 2010; 132:2–9.
18.
GuerinHAL, ElliottDM. Degeneration affects the fiber reorientation of human annulus fibrosus under tensile load. J Biomech, 2006; 39:1410–1418.
19.
RömgensAM, Van DonkelaarCC, ItoK. Contribution of collagen fibers to the compressive stiffness of cartilaginous tissues. Biomech Model Mechanobiol, 2013; 12:1221–1231.
20.
NewellN, LittleJP, ChristouA, et al.Biomechanics of the human intervertebral disc: a review of testing techniques and results. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2017; 69:420–434.
21.
HolzapfelGA, Schulze-BauerCAJ, FeiglG, et al.Single lamellar mechanics of the human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Biomech Model Mechanobiol, 2005; 3:125–140.
22.
Du PlessisA, BabafemiAJ, PaulSC, et al.Biomimicry for 3D concrete printing: a review and perspective. Addit Manuf, 2021; 38:101823.
23.
KimTY, ParkSH, ParkK. Development of functionally graded metamaterial using selective polymerization via digital light processing additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf, 2021; 47:102254.
WangK, WuC, QianZ, et al.Dual-material 3D printed metamaterials with tunable mechanical properties for patient-specific tissue-mimicking phantoms. Addit Manuf, 2016; 12:31–37.
26.
YuZ, VoumardB, SheaK, et al.Exploration of the influence of different biomimetic designs of 3D printed multi-material artificial spinal disc on the natural mechanics restoration. Mater Des, 2021; 210:110046.
27.
BeecroftM. Digital interlooping: 3D printing of weft-knitted textile-based tubular structures using selective laser sintering of nylon powder. Int J Fash Des Technol Educ, 2019; 12:218–224.
28.
MaY, FengX, RogersJA, et al.Design and application of “J-shaped” stress-strain behavior in stretchable electronics: a review. Lab Chip, 2017; 17:1689–1704.
29.
TiltonM, LewisGS, Bok WeeH, et al.Additive manufacturing of fracture fixation implants: design, material characterization, biomechanical modeling and experimentation. Addit Manuf, 2020; 33:101137.
30.
YuZ, SheaK, StankovicT. A computational method for the design of an additively manufactured personalized artificial spinal disc with physiological stiffness under multiple loading conditions. J Mech Des, 2019; 141:101406.
31.
GaynorAT, MeiselNA, WilliamsCB, et al.Multiple-material topology optimization of compliant mechanisms created via PolyJet three-dimensional printing. J Manuf Sci Eng, 2014; 136:061015.
32.
CortesDH, ElliottDM. The intervertebral disc: overview of disc mechanics. Intervertebral Disc, 2014:17–31.
33.
MuellerJ, SheaK. Buckling, build orientation, and scaling effects in 3D printed lattices. Mater Today Commun, 2018; 17:69–75.
34.
LumpeTS, MuellerJ, SheaK. Tensile properties of multi-material interfaces in 3D printed parts. Mater Des, 2019; 162:1–9.
35.
Gardner-MorseMG, StokesIAF. Structural behavior of human lumbar spinal motion segments. J Biomech, 2004; 37:205–212.
36.
ZhouSH, McCarthyID, McGregorAH, et al.Geometrical dimensions of the lower lumbar vertebrae—analysis of data from digitised CT images. Eur Spine J, 2000; 9:242–248.
37.
DavidO, ShohamM. Compliant mechanism as a motion-preserving artificial spinal disc: a novel concept. J Eng Sci Med Diagnostics Ther, 2020; 3:1–10.
38.
HuiN, PhanK, KerferdJ, et al.Comparison of M6-C and Mobi-C cervical total disc replacement for cervical degenerative disc disease in adults. J Spine Surg, 2019; 5:393–403.
39.
BatheKJ, CimentoAP. Some practical procedures for the solution of nonlinear finite element equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, 1980; 22:59–85.
40.
SteponavičėI, Shirazi-ManeshM, HyndmanRJ, et al.On sampling methods for costly multi-objective black-box optimization. Springer Optim Appl, 2016; 107:273–296.
41.
CunninghamBW, GordonJD, DmitrievAE, et al.Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine, 2003; 28:110–117.
42.
ElliottDM, SettonLA. Anisotropic and inhomogeneous tensile behavior of the human anulus fibrosus: experimental measurement and material model predictions. J Biomech Eng, 2001; 123:256.
AudetC, BéchardV, Le DigabelS. Nonsmooth optimization through Mesh Adaptive Direct Search and Variable Neighborhood Search. J Glob Optim, 2008; 41:299–318.
45.
DuclosSE, MichalekAJ. Residual strains in the intervertebral disc annulus fibrosus suggest complex tissue remodeling in response to in-vivo loading. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2017; 68:232–238.
46.
GardeuxV, MahamedMG, ChelouahR, et al.Adaptive pattern search for large-scale optimization. Appl Intell, 2017; 47:319–330.
47.
SchmidtH, HeuerF, WilkeHJ. Interaction between finite helical axes and facet joint forces under combined loading. Spine, 2008; 33:2741–2748.
48.
WangS, ParkWM, GadikotaHR, et al.A combined numerical and experimental technique for estimation of the forces and moments in the lumbar intervertebral disc. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng, 2013; 16:1278–1286.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
