Instability in the spinal section along with the cases of degeneration is commonly cured by the pedicle screw fixation system. The present work aims at the identification of suitable instrumentation at the spinal segment L4-L5 through finite element method and compared with an intact spine. Vertebral section (L3- Coccyx) upper surface L3 were subjected to various axial compressive forces for the body weights of 17, 67, 100 and 167 kg under the different physiological motion conditions such as rotation, flexion, extension and bending. Considering Intact as 100% the calculated results of equivalent stress on IVD-L34, L45 and L5S are as 90%, 43% and 76% during flexion, for extension 118%, 26% and 108%, during bending 58%, 58% and 80% and during rotation 57%, 46%, 74% respectively are the lowest for 6 mm instrumentation as compared to other instrumentation model. It was also observed that the load on the cortical and annulus region were highest as compared to the cancellous and nucleus region. The results of the present study can contribute to explaining fracture and intervertebral disc replacement cases subjected to pedicle screw implantation.
PanjabiMMOxlandTRYamamotoI, et al. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg1994; 76(3): 413–424.
2.
BonoCMLeeCK.Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine2004; 29(4): 455–463.
3.
KimHJKangKTMoonSH, et al. The quantitative assessment of risk factors to overstress at adjacent segments after lumbar fusion: removal of posterior ligaments and pedicle screws. Spine2011; 36(17): 1367–1373.
4.
SagomonyantsKBJarman-SmithMLDevineJN, et al. The in vitro response of human osteoblasts to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) substrates compared to commercially pure titanium. Biomaterials2008; 29(11): 1563–1572.
5.
KurtzSMDevineJN.PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials2007; 28(32): 4845–4869.
6.
DeyoRANachemsonAMirzaSK.Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. Spine J2004; 4(5): S138–S142.
7.
RhoJYAshmanRBTurnerCH.Young–s modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements. J Biomech1993; 26(2): 111–119.
8.
RahmMDHallBB.Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord1996; 9(5): 392–400.
9.
WhitecloudTs3rdDavisJMOlivePM.Operative treatment of the degenerated segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine1994; 19(5): 531–536.
10.
GhiselliGWangJCBhatiaNN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg2004; 86(7): 1497–1503.
11.
BastianLLangeUKnopC, et al. Evaluation of the mobility of adjacent segments after posterior thoracolumbar fixation: a biomechanical study. Eur Spine J2001; 10(4): 295–300.
12.
ChouWYHsuCJChangWN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in elderly patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2002; 122(1): 39–43.
13.
LaiPLChenLHNiuCC, et al. Relation between laminectomy and development of adjacent segment instability after lumbar fusion with pedicle fixation. Spine2004; 29(22): 2527–2532.
14.
KatonisPChristoforakisJAligizakisAC, et al. Complications and problems related to pedicle screw fixation of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003; 411: 86–94.
15.
ChangTKHuangCHLiuYC, et al. Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation on adjacent levels. Formos J Musculoskel Disord2013; 4(2): 42–47.
16.
KangKTKohYGSonJ, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of pedicle screw fixation system in spinal adjacent levels using polyetheretherketone, carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone, and traditional titanium as rod materials. Compos B Eng2017; 130: 248–256.
17.
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.
18.
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 Eng2022; 20(1): 45–53.
19.
JainPKhanMR.Prediction of biomechanical behavior of lumbar vertebrae using a novel semi-rigid stabilization device. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering Medicine2019; 233(8): 849–857.
20.
AhnYHChenWMLeeKY, et al. Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices. Biomed Mater2008; 3(4): 044101.
21.
AlapanYSezerSDemirC, et al. Load sharing in lumbar spinal segment as a function of location of center of rotation. J Neurosurg Spine2014; 20(5): 542–549.
22.
PonnappanRKSerhanHZardaB, et al. Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation. Spine J2009; 9(3): 263–267.
23.
SanjayDBhardwajJSKumarN, et al. Expandable pedicle screw may have better fixation than normal pedicle screw: preclinical investigation on instrumented L4-L5 vertebrae based on various physiological movements. Med Biol Eng Comput2022; 60(9): 2501–2519.
24.
LiaoYYanYKangY, et al. Biomechanical analysis of the external fixation in a lumbar fracture model: A Finite Element Study. J Med Biol Eng2022; 42(4): 469–478.
25.
BiswasJKRoySRanaM, et al. A comparison of rigid, semi-rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a finite element study. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering Medicine2019; 233(12): 1292–1298.
26.
WeidlingMHeilemannMSchoenfelderS, et al. Influence of thread design on anchorage of pedicle screws in cancellous bone: an experimental and analytical analysis. Sci Rep2022; 12(1): 1–5.
27.
SengulEOzmenRYamanME, et al. Influence of posterior pedicle screw fixation at L4-L5 level on biomechanics of the lumbar spine with and without fusion: a finite element method. Biomed Eng Online2021; 20(1): 1–9.
28.
BokovAPavlovaSBulkinA, et al. Potential contribution of pedicle screw design to loosening rate in patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: an observational study. World J Orthop2021; 12(5): 310–319.
29.
BiswasJKRanaMMajumderS, et al. Effect of twolevel pedicle-screw fixation with different rod materials on lumbar spine: a finite element study. J Orthop Sci2018; 23: 258–265.
30.
YamamotoIPanjabiMMCriscoT, et al. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine1989; 14: 1256–1260.
31.
PearcyMJTibrewalSB.Axial rotation and lateral bending in the normal lumbar spine measured by threedimensional radiography. Spine1984; 9: 582–587.
32.
HaradaAOkuizumiHMiyagiN, et al. Correlation between bone mineral density and intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine1998; 23(8): 857–861.
33.
TsouknidasASarigiannidisSOAnagnostidisK, et al. Assessment of stress patterns on a spinal motion segment in healthy versus osteoporotic bony models with or without disc degeneration: a finite element analysis. Spine J2015; 15(3): S17–S22.
34.
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.
35.
WuHPangQJiangG.Medium-term effects of dynesys dynamic stabilization versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease. J Int Med Res2017; 45(5): 1562–1573.
36.
JainPKhanMR.Biomechanical study of fused lumbar spine considering bone degeneracy using FEA. Arab J Sci Eng2018; 43(3): 1325–1334.
37.
SchizasCTzinierisNTsiridisE, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop2009; 33(6): 1683–1688.
38.
VillaTLa BarberaLGalbuseraF.Comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems. Spine J2014; 14(4): 695–704.
39.
ChenCSChenWJChengCK, et al. Failure analysis of broken pedicle screws on spinal instrumentation. Med Eng Phys2005; 27(6): 487–496.
40.
KimKParkWMKimYH, et al. Stress analysis in a pedicle screw fixation system with flexible rods in the lumbar spine. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering Medicine2010; 224(3): 477–485.
41.
MartzEOGoelVKPopeMH, et al. Materials and design of spinal implants–a review. J Biomed Mater Res1997; 38(3): 267–288.
42.
OkuyamaKSatoKAbeE, et al. Stability of transpedicle screwing for the osteoporotic spine. An in vitro study of the mechanical stability. Spine1993; 18(15): 2240–2245.
43.
ZindrickMRWiltseLLWidellEH, et al. A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res1986; 203(203): 99–112.
