The treatment of spinal failure requires suitable instrumentation, which is based on numerous concepts such as rigid fixation, semi-rigid and dynamic stabilisation. In the present work, the biomechanical investigation of various fixation systems on the lumbar segment L2–L3 was performed employing finite element analysis. Different devices were considered: novel stabilisation device (NSD), rigid implant (RI) and existing dynamic stabilisation device (EDSD). All instrumented models were loaded with a condition of 400 N compressive force with a moment of 10Nm during flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. The results of range of motion change (RMC), von-Mises stress and strain were compared. The spinal biomechanics post instrumentation resulted significantly sensitive to the geometrical feature of the implant. The obtained results showed that NSD has intermediate motion characteristics in between dynamic stabilisation and rigid fixation. However, the optimum features of a novel stabilisation device for the treatment of spinal failure still need to be verified employing in-vivo, in-vitro studies.
AmaritsakulYChaoCKLinJ. Comparison study of the pullout strength of conventional spinal pedicle screws and a novel design in full and backed-out insertions using mechanical tests. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2014; 228(3): 250–257.
2.
RanaMBiswasJKRoyS, et al. Motion analysis of lumbar vertebrae for different rod materials and flexible rod device–an experimental and finite element study. Biocybern Biomed Eng2020; 40(1): 415–425.
3.
SengWRChouSMSiddiquiSS, et al. Pedicle screw designs in spinal surgery: is there a difference? a biomechanical study on primary and revision pull-out strength. Spine2019; 44(3): E144–E149.
4.
RanaMRoySBiswasP, et al. Design and development of a novel expanding flexible rod device (FRD) for stability in the lumbar spine: a finite-element study. Int J Artif Organs2020; 43(12): 803–810.
5.
ShinDSLeeKKimD. Biomechanical study of lumbar spine with dynamic stabilization device using finite element method. Computer-Aided Design2007; 39(7): 559–567.
6.
LiuKSunWLuQ, et al. A cost-utility analysis of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus instrumented fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. J Orthop Sci2017; 22(6): 982–987.
7.
BiswasJKKalitaKRoychowdhuryA. Symbolic regression metamodel-based optimal design of patient-specific spinal implant (pedicle screw fixation). Eng Comput2020; 16(4): 371–382.
8.
BiswasJKRanaMMalasA, et al. Effect of single and multilevel artificial inter-vertebral disc replacement in lumbar spine: a finite element study. Int J Artif Organs2021; 45(2): 193–199.
9.
JainPKhanMR. Prediction of biomechanical behavior of lumbar vertebrae using a novel semi-rigid stabilization device. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2019; 233(8): 849–857.
10.
DeyoRANachemsonAMirzaSK. Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. Spine J2004; 4(5): S138–S142.
11.
FanWGuoLX. A comparison of the influence of three different lumbar interbody fusion approaches on stress in the pedicle screw fixation system: finite element static and vibration analyses. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng2019; 35(3): e3162.
12.
OikonomidisSHeckVBantleS, et al. Impact of lordotic cages in the restoration of spinopelvic parameters after dorsal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective case control study. Int Orthop2020; 44(12): 2665–2672.
13.
MobbsRJPhanKMalhamG, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. Int J Spine Surg2015; 1(1): 2.
14.
AhnYHChenWMLeeKY, et al. Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices. Biomed Mater2008; 3(4): 4855–4863.
15.
KimYSZhangHYMoonBJ, et al. Nitinol spring rod dynamic stabilization system and Nitinol memory loops in surgical treatment for lumbar disc disorders: short-term follow up. Neurosurg Focus2007; 22(1): 1–9.
16.
YuanWSuQJLiuT, et al. Evaluation of Coflex interspinous stabilization following decompression compared with decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: a minimum 5-year follow-up study. J Clin Neurosci2017; 35: 24–29.
17.
KuoCHHuangWCWuJC, et al. Radiological adjacent-segment degeneration in L4–5 spondylolisthesis: comparison between dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine2018; 29(3): 250–258.
18.
KarahaliosDGKaibaraTPorterRW, et al. Biomechanics of a lumbar interspinous anchor with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine2010; 12(4): 372–380.
19.
Gonzalez-BlohmSADoulgerisJJAghayevK, et al. Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine2014; 20(2): 209–219.
20.
GalbuseraFBelliniCMAnasettiF, et al. Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison. Med Eng Phys2011; 33(4): 490–496.
21.
OktenogluTErbulutDUKiapourA, et al. Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine: in vitro cadaver investigation and a finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2015; 18(11): 1252–1261.
22.
JainPKhanMR. Biomechanical study of fused lumbar spine considering bone degeneracy using FEA. Arab J Sci Eng2018; 43(3): 1325–1334.
23.
JainPKhanMR. Selection of suitable pedicle screw for degenerated cortical and cancellous bone of human lumbar spine: a finite element study. Int J Artif Organs2021; 44(5): 361–366.
24.
WuHPangQJiangG. Medium-term effects of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease. Int J Med Res2017; 45(5): 1562–1573.
25.
OshtoryRHarrisJAPatelPD, et al. Lumbar intervertebral spacer with cement augmentation of endplates and integrated screws as a fixation device in an osteoporotic model: an in vitro kinematic and load-to-failure study. Int J Spine Surg2021; 15(2): 324–333.
26.
ZhangZFogelGRLiaoZ, et al. Biomechanical analysis of lumbar interbody fusion cages with various lordotic angles: a finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2018; 21(3): 247–254.
27.
XuMYangJLiebermanI, et al. Stress distribution in vertebral bone and pedicle screw and screw–bone load transfers among various fixation methods for lumbar spine surgical alignment: a finite element study. Med Eng Phys2019; 63: 26–32.
28.
JainPKhanMR. Biomechanical study of lumbar spine (L2-L4) using hybrid stabilization device-a finite element analysis. Int J Manuf Mater (IJMMME)2020; 10(1): 20–32.
29.
ShenHChenYLiaoZ, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with various fixation options: finite element analysis of static and vibration conditions. Clin Biomech2021; 84: 105339.
30.
TadepalliSCErdemirACavanaghPR. Comparison of hexahedral and tetrahedral elements in finite element analysis of the foot and footwear. J Biomech2011; 44(12): 2337–2343.
31.
BenzleySEPerryEMerkleyK, et al. A comparison of all hexagonal and all tetrahedral finite element meshes for elastic and elasto-plastic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 4th International meshing roundtable, 16 October 1995, vol. 17, pp.179–191. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.
32.
CifuentesAOKalbagA. A performance study of tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D finite element structural analysis. Finite Elem Anal Des1992; 12(3–4): 313–318.
33.
MalasARanaMJainP, et al. Effect of Carbon fiber reinforced-polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) Composite rod for pedicle screw-rod semi-rigid fixation: a finite element study. Int J Multiscale Comput Eng2021; 19(6): 45–53.
34.
AthanasakopoulosMMavrogenisAFTriantafyllopoulosG, et al. Posterior spinal fusion using pedicle screws. Orthopedics2013; 36(7): e951–e957.
35.
BonoCMKadabaMVaccaroAR. Posterior pedicle fixation-based dynamic stabilization devices for the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. Clin Spine Surg2009; 22(5): 376–383.
36.
SenguptaDK. Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin2004; 35(1): 43–56.
37.
HilibrandASRobbinsM. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?Spine J2004; 4(6): S190–S194.
38.
SenguptaDKWebbJKMulhollandRC. Can soft stabilization in the lumbar spine unload the disc and retain mobility? a biomechanical study with fulcrum assisted soft stabilization on cadaver spine. In: ISSLS Annual Meeting, Edinburgh, 19–22 June 2001, p.129.
39.
PonnappanRKSerhanHZardaB, et al. Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation. Spine J2009; 9(3): 263–267.
40.
BozkuşHŞenoğluMBaekS, et al. Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: in vitro biomechanical comparison with standard rigid pedicle screw-rod stabilization. J Neurosurg Spine2010; 12(2): 183–189.
41.
GornetMFChanFWColemanJC, et al. Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs. J Biomech Eng2011; 133(8): 081009.
42.
JahngTAKimYEMoonKY. Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis. Spine J2013; 13(1): 85–94.
43.
MesbahMBarkaouiA. Biomechanical investigation of the effect of pedicle-based hybrid stabilization constructs: a finite element study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2020; 234(9): 931–941.
