Finite element models of an isolated vertebral body cannot accurately predict compressive strength of the spinal column because, in life, compressive load is variably distributed across the vertebral body and neural arch. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a patient-specific finite element model of a functional spinal unit, and then use the model to predict vertebral strength from medical images. A total of 16 cadaveric functional spinal units were scanned and then tested mechanically in bending and compression to generate a vertebral wedge fracture. Before testing, an image processing and finite element analysis framework (SpineVox-Pro), developed previously in MATLAB using ANSYS APDL, was used to generate a subject-specific finite element model with eight-node hexahedral elements. Transversely isotropic linear-elastic material properties were assigned to vertebrae, and simple homogeneous linear-elastic properties were assigned to the intervertebral disc. Forward bending loading conditions were applied to simulate manual handling. Results showed that vertebral strengths measured by experiment were positively correlated with strengths predicted by the functional spinal unit finite element model with von Mises or Drucker–Prager failure criteria (R2 = 0.80–0.87), with areal bone mineral density measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (R2 = 0.54) and with volumetric bone mineral density from quantitative computed tomography (R2 = 0.79). Large-displacement non-linear analyses on all specimens did not improve predictions. We conclude that subject-specific finite element models of a functional spinal unit have potential to estimate the vertebral strength better than bone mineral density alone.
MeltonLJRiggsBLKeavenyTMet al. Structural determinants of vertebral fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res2007; 22: 1885–1892.
2.
HommingaJMWeinansHGowinWet al. Osteoporosis changes the amount of vertebral trabecular bone at risk of fracture but not the vertebral load distribution. Spine2001; 26: 1555–1560.
3.
CrawfordRPCannCEKeavenyTM. Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone2003; 33: 744–750.
4.
KeavenyTMDonleyDWHoffmannPFet al. Effects of teriparatide and alendronate on vertebral strength as assessed by finite element modeling of QCT scans in women with osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res2007; 22: 149–157.
5.
BuckleyJMLooKMotherwayJ. Comparison of quantitative computed tomography-based measures in predicting vertebral compressive strength. Bone2007; 40: 767–774.
6.
LiebschnerMAKKopperdahlDLRosenbergWSet al. Finite element modeling of the human thoracolumbar spine. Spine2003; 28: 559–565.
7.
KopperdahlDLPearlmanJLKeavenyTM. Biomechanical consequences of an isolated overload on the human vertebral body. J Orthop Res2000; 18: 685–690.
8.
ImaiKOhnishiIMatsumotoTet al. Assessment of vertebral fracture risk and therapeutic effects of alendronate in postmenopausal women using a quantitative computed tomography-based nonlinear finite element method. Osteoporosis Int2009; 20: 801–810.
9.
LewieckiEMKTonyMKopperdahlDLet al. Once-monthly oral ibandronate improves biomechanical determinants of bone strength in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab2009; 94: 171–180.
10.
ChevalierYQuekEBorahBet al. Biomechanical effects of teriparatide in women with osteoporosis treated previously with alendronate and risedronate: results from quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis of the vertebral body. Bone2010; 46: 41–48.
11.
ZeinaliAHashemi-MalayeriBAkhlaghpoorS. Noninvasive prediction of vertebral body compressive strength using nonlinear finite element method and an image based technique. Phys Med2010; 26: 88–97.
12.
RohlmannAConsmüllerTDreischarfMet al. Measurement of the number of lumbar spinal movements in the sagittal plane in a 24-hour period. Eur Spine J2014; 23: 2375–2384.
13.
DolanPEarleyMAdamsMA. Bending and compressive stresses acting on the lumbar spine during lifting activities. J Biomech1994; 27: 1237–1248.
14.
JacksonSARobertsonTA; CaMos Study Group. Vertebral fracture definition from population-based data: preliminary results from the Canadian multicenter osteoporosis study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int2000; 11: 680–687.
15.
WasnichRD. A new, standardized approach to fracture risk interpretation. Hawaii Med J1996; 55: 141–143.
16.
EastellRCedelSLWahnerHWet al. Classification of vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res1991; 6: 207–215.
17.
PollintinePPrzybylaASDolanPet al. Neural arch load-bearing in old and degenerated spines. J Biomech2004; 37: 197–204.
18.
AdamsMAPollintinePTobiasJHet al. Intervertebral disc degeneration can predispose to anterior vertebral fractures in the thoracolumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res2006; 21: 1409–1416.
19.
WangJLParnianpourMShirazi-AdlAet al. Development and validation of a viscoelastic finite element model of an L2/L3 motion segment. Theor Appl Fract Mec1997; 28: 81–93.
20.
NatarajanRNWilliamsJRAnderssonGBJ. Finite element model of a lumbar spinal motion segment to predict circadian variation in stature. Comput Struct2003; 81: 835–842.
21.
CheungJT-MZhangMChowDH-K. Biomechanical responses of the intervertebral joints to static and vibrational loading: a finite element study. Clin Biomech2003; 18: 790–799.
22.
PolikeitANolteLPFergusonSJ. Simulated influence of osteoporosis and disc degeneration on the load transfer in a lumbar functional spinal unit. J Biomech2004; 37: 1061–1069.
23.
RohlmannAZanderTSchmidtHet al. Analysis of the influence of disc degeneration on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar motion segment using the finite element method. J Biomech2006; 39: 2484–2490.
24.
Shirazi-AdlSAShrivastavaSCAhmedAM. Stress analysis of the lumbar disc-body unit in compression a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element study. Spine1984; 9: 120–134.
25.
GotoKTajimaNChosaEet al. Mechanical analysis of the lumbar vertebrae in a three-dimensional finite element method model in which intradiscal pressure in the nucleus pulposus was used to establish the model. J Orthop Sci2002; 7: 243–246.
26.
AdamsMADolanPHuttonWC. The stages of disc degeneration as revealed by discograms. J Bone Joint Surg Br1986; 68: 36–41.
27.
LuoJBertramWSangarDet al. Is kyphoplasty better than vertebroplasty in restoring normal mechanical function to an injured spine?Bone2010; 46: 1050–1057.
28.
DunlopRBAdamsMHuttonW. Disc space narrowing and the lumbar facet joints. J Bone Joint Surg Br1984; 66: 706–710.
29.
AdamsMAMcNallyDSChinnHet al. The clinical biomechanics award paper 1993 Posture and the compressive strength of the lumbar spine. Clin Biomech1994; 9: 5–14.
30.
AdamsMAHuttonHWStottJR. The resistance to flexion of the lumbar intervertebral joint. Spine1980; 5: 245–253.
31.
LandhamPRGilbertSJBaker-RandHLAet al. Pathogenesis of vertebral anterior wedge deformity. A two-stage process?Spine2015; 40 (12): 902–908.
32.
LuoJSkrzypiecDMPollintinePet al. Mechanical efficacy of vertebroplasty: influence of cement type, BMD, fracture severity, and disc degeneration. Bone2007; 40: 1110–1119.
33.
KopperdahlDLMorganEFKeavenyTM. Quantitative computed tomography estimates of the mechanical properties of human vertebral trabecular bone. J Orthop Res2002; 20: 801–805.
34.
UlrichDVan RietbergenBLaibAet al. The ability of three-dimensional structural indices to reflect mechanical aspects of trabecular bone. Bone1999; 25: 55–60.
35.
KeavenyTMWachtelEFFordCMet al. Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus. J Biomech1994; 27: 1137–1146.
36.
MorganEFBayraktarHHKeavenyTM. Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech2003; 36: 897–904.
37.
LewisG. Properties of acrylic bone cement: State of the art review. J Biomed Mater Res1997; 38(2): 155–182.
38.
DenozièreGKuDN. Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech2006; 39: 766–775.
39.
MorganEFKeavenyT. Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech2001; 34: 569–577.
40.
KeyakJHRossiSAJonesKAet al. Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech1998; 31: 125–133.
41.
LotzJCChealEJHayesWC. Fracture prediction for the proximal femur using finite element models: part 1 – linear analysis. J Biomech Eng1991; 113: 353–360.
42.
LotzJCChealEJHayesWC. Fracture prediction for the proximal femur using finite element models: part 2 – nonlinear analysis. J Biomech Eng1991; 113: 361–365.
43.
KeyakJHRossiSA. Prediction of femoral fracture load using finite element models: an examination of stress- and strain-based failure theories. J Biomech2000; 33: 209–214.
44.
BesshoMOhnishiIMatsumotoJet al. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method. J Biomech2007; 40: 1745–1753.
45.
YosibashZTalTTrabelsiN. Predicting the yield of the proximal femur using high-order finite-element analysis with inhomogeneous orthotropic material properties. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci2010; 368: 2707–2723.
46.
Dall’AraEPahrDVargaPet al. QCT-based finite element models predict the human vertebral apparent strength and stiffness significantly better than DXA. Osteoporosis Int2012; 23(2): 563–572.
47.
PahrDDall’AraEVargaPet al. HR-pQCT homogenized finite element models provide quantitative predictions of experimental vertebral body stiffness and strength with the same accuracy as μFE models. Comput Meth Biomech Biomed Engin2012: 15(7): 711–720.
48.
BayraktarHHMorganEFNieburGLet al. Comparison of the elastic and yield properties of human femoral trabecular and cortical bone tissue. J Biomech2004; 37: 27–35.
49.
KeyakJHRossiSAJonesKAet al. Prediction of fracture location in the proximal femur using finite element models. Med Eng Phys2001; 23: 657–664.
EbbesenENThomsenJSBeck-NielsenHet al. Lumbar vertebral body compressive strength evaluated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography, and ashing. Bone1999; 25: 713–724.
52.
StrangeDGTFisherSTBoughtonPCet al. Restoration of compressive loading properties of lumbar discs with a nucleus implant-a finite element analysis study. Spine J2010; 10: 602–609.
53.
IatridisJWeidenbaumMSettonLAet al. Is the nucleus pulposus a solid or a fluid? Mechanical behaviors of the nucleus pulposus of the human intervertebral disc. Spine1996; 21: 1174–1184.
54.
JohannessenWElliottDM. Effects of degeneration on the biphasic material properties of human nucleus pulposus in confined compression. Spine2005; 30: E724–E729.
55.
BerlemannUGriesNCMooreRJ. The relationship between height, shape and histological changes in early degeneration of the lower lumbar discs. Eur Spine J1998; 7: 212–217.
56.
UrbanJPRobertsS. Degeneration of the intervertebral disc. Arthritis Res Ther2003; 5: 120–130.
57.
FaganMJJulianSSiddallDJet al. Patient-specific spine models. Part 1: finite element analysis of the lumbar intervertebral disc – a material sensitivity study. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2002; 216: 299–314.
