The influence of the viscoelastic property of polycarbonate urethane as an artificial disc core material under various physiological motions at the L4–L5 level
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2022
The influence of the viscoelastic property of polycarbonate urethane as an artificial disc core material under various physiological motions at the L4–L5 level
Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is one of the musculoskeletal disorders due to the Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD), that cause low back pain (LBP) and leads to a reduced range of motion. Spinal fusion and arthroplasty are the other surgical procedures that could replace the disc affected by DDD against artificial disc replacement (ADR). This study aims to analyse the biomechanical behaviour of proposed core material as Polycarbonate Urethane (PCU) in the L4–L5 lumbar segment for ADR with Ti-6Al-4V and Co-28Cr-6M as endplate materials and compare it to the performance of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) core. Finite element methods have been approached to measure the overall stress distribution along with other physiological motions like Flexion (FLEX), Extension (EXT), Axial rotation (AR) and Lateral bending (LB), respectively. Preload of 450 N compressive load, 8 N-m for Flex, 6 N-m for EXT, 6 N-m for AR and 4 N-m for LB are applied. It could be concluded that Ti-6Al-4V – PCU and Co-28Cr-6M – PCU is the best composition for the ADR for the L4–L5 level.
OthmanYAVermaRQureshiSA. Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med2019; 7(Suppl 5): S170.
2.
BaptistaJDSFontesRBDVLibertiEA. Aging and degeneration of the intervertebral disc: review of basic science. Coluna/Columna2015; 14: 144–148.
3.
DenozièreGKuDN. Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech2006; 39(4): 766–775.
4.
NewellNLittleJPChristouA, et al. Biomechanics of the human intervertebral disc: a review of testing techniques and results. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 69: 420–434.
5.
UscholdTDFuscoDGermainR, et al. Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review. Am J Neuroradiol2012; 33(9): 1631–1641.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
St JohnKR. The use of polyurethane materials in the surgery of the spine: a review. Spine J2014; 14(12): 3038–3047.
ChandyTVan HeeJNettekovenW, et al. Long-term in vitro stability assessment of polycarbonate urethane micro catheters: resistance to oxidation and stress cracking. J Biomed Mat Res Part B Appl Biomat2009; 89(2): 314–324.
11.
WigginsMJMacEwanMAndersonJM, et al. Effect of soft-segment chemistry on polyurethane biostability during in vitro fatigue loading. J Biomed Mater Res A2004; 68(4): 668–683.
12.
St. JohnKGuptaM. Evaluation of the wear performance of a polycarbonate-urethane acetabular component in a hip joint simulator and comparison with UHMWPE and cross-linked UHMWPE. J Biomater Appl2012; 27(1): 55–65.
13.
ElsnerJJMezapeYHakshurK, et al. Wear rate evaluation of a novel polycarbonate-urethane cushion form bearing for artificial hip joints. Acta Biomater2010; 6(12): 4698–4707.
14.
SmithSLAshHEUnsworthA. A tribological study of UHMWPE acetabular cups and polyurethane compliant layer acetabular cups. J Biomed Mat Res2000; 53(6): 710–716.
15.
SmithRAHallabNJ. In vitro macrophage response to polyethylene and polycarbonate-urethane particles. J Biomed Mater Res A2010; 93(1): 347–355.
SteffenR. Biomechanische Untersuchungen zur Bandscheibenprothese SB-Charité. Ulm: Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft fur Wirbelsaulenchirurgie, 1997.
18.
DoorisAPGoelVKGroslandNM, et al. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine2001; 26(6): E122–E129.
19.
WolfAShohamMMichaelS, et al. Morphometric study of the human lumbar spine for operation-workspace specifications. Spine2001; 26(22): 2472–2477.
20.
GiladINissanM. A study of vertebra and disc geometric relations of the human cervical and lumbar spine. Spine1986; 11(2): 154–157.
21.
BiswasJKRanaMMalasA, et al. Effect of single and multilevel artificial inter-vertebral disc replacement in lumbar spine: a finite element study. Int J Artif Organs2022; 45(2): 193–199.
22.
ShinDSLeeKKimD. Biomechanical study of lumbar spine with dynamic stabilization device using finite element method. Comput Des2007; 39(7): 559–567.
23.
GabarreSHerreraAMateoJ, et al. Study of the polycarbonate-urethane/metal contact in different positions during gait cycle. Biomed Res Int2014; 2014: 548968.
24.
DreischarfMZanderTShirazi-AdlA, et al. Comparison of eight published static finite element models of the intact lumbar spine: predictive power of models improves when combined together. J Biomech2014; 47(8): 1757–1766.
25.
BhattacharyaSRoySRanaM, et al. Biomechanical performance of a modified design of dynamic cervical implant compared to conventional ball and socket design of an artificial intervertebral disc implant: a finite element study. J Mech Med Biol2019; 19(04): 1950017.
26.
Dehghan-HamaniIArjmandNShirazi-AdlA. Subject-specific loads on the lumbar spine in detailed finite element models scaled geometrically and kinematic-driven by radiography images. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng2019; 35(4): e3182.
27.
JebaseelanDDJebarajCYoganandanN, et al. Validation efforts and flexibilities of an eight-year-old human juvenile lumbar spine using a three-dimensional finite element model. Med Biol Eng Comput2010; 48(12): 1223–1231.
28.
DhasonRRoySDattaS. A biomechanical study on the laminate stacking sequence in composite bone plates for Vancouver femur B1 fracture fixation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2020; 196: 105680.
29.
BiswasJKMalasAMajumdarS, et al. A comparative finite element analysis of artificial intervertebral disc replacement and pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2022; 1–9.
30.
BiswasJKRoySPradhanR, et al. Effects of cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion for different bone conditions: a finite element study. Int J Multiscale Comput Eng2019; 17(4): 411–427.
31.
YamamotoIPanjabiMMCriscoT, et al. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine1989; 14(11): 1256–1260.
32.
PearcyMPortekIAShepherdJ. Three-dimensional x-ray analysis of normal movement in the lumbar spine. Spine1984; 9(3): 294–297.
33.
WhiteA3rdPanjabiMM. The basic kinematics of the human spine. A review of past and current knowledge. Spine1978; 3(1): 12–20.
34.
SchmidtHKettlerAHeuerF, et al. Intradiscal pressure, shear strain, and fiber strain in the intervertebral disc under combined loading. Spine2007; 32(7): 748–755.
35.
Shirazi-AdlA. Biomechanics of the lumbar spine in sagittal/lateral moments. Spine1994; 19(21): 2407–2414.
36.
ChenCSChengCKLiuCL, et al. Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys2001; 23(7): 485–493.
37.
KiapourAAmbatiDHoyRW, et al. Effect of graded facetectomy on biomechanics of dynesys dynamic stabilization system. Spine2012; 37(10): E581–E589.
38.
ParkWMKimKKimYH. Effects of degenerated intervertebral discs on intersegmental rotations, intradiscal pressures, and facet joint forces of the whole lumbar spine. Comput Biol Med2013; 43(9): 1234–1240.
