Impact of spinal rod stiffness on porcine lumbar biomechanics: Finite element model validation and parametric study

Abstract

A three-dimensional finite element model of the porcine lumbar spine (L1–L6) was used to assess the effect of spinal rod stiffness on lumbar biomechanics. The model was validated through a comparison with in vitro measurements performed on six porcine spine specimens. The validation metrics employed included intervertebral rotations and the nucleus pressure in the first instrumented intervertebral disc. The numerical results obtained suggest that rod stiffness values as low as 0.1 GPa are required to reduce the mobility gradient between the adjacent and instrumented segments and the nucleus pressures across the porcine lumbar spine significantly. Stiffness variations above this threshold value have no significant effect on spine biomechanics. For such low-stiffness rods, intervertebral rotations in the instrumented zone must be monitored closely in order to guarantee solid fusion. Looking ahead, the proposed model will serve to examine the transverse process hooks and variable stiffness rods in order to further smooth the transition between the adjacent and instrumented segments, while preserving the stability of the instrumented zone, which is needed for fusion.

Keywords

Adjacent segment disease spinal fusion finite element modelling porcine lumbar spine

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bederman

Kreder

Weller

et al . The who, what and when of surgery for the degenerative lumbar spine: a population-based study of surgeon factors, surgical procedures, recent trends and reoperation rates. Can J Surg 2009; 52(4): 283–290.

Davis

Increasing rates of cervical and lumbar spine surgery in the United States, 1979-1990. Spine 1979; 19(10): 1117–1123.

Deyo

Nachemson

Mirza

SK.

Spinal-fusion surgery: the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(7): 722–726.

Weinstein

Lurie

Olson

et al . United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003. Spine 1992; 31(23): 2707–2714.

Kleck

Illing

Lindley

et al . Strain in posterior instrumentation resulted by different combinations of posterior and anterior devices for long spine fusion constructs. Spine Deform 2017; 5(1): 27–36.

Kotani

Cunningham

Cappuccino

et al . The role of spinal instrumentation in augmenting lumbar posterolateral fusion. Spine 1996; 21(3): 278–287.

Lorenz

Zindrick

Schwaegler

et al . A comparison of single-level fusions with and without hardware. Spine 1991; 16(Suppl. 8): S455–S458.

Virk

Niedermeier

et al . Adjacent segment disease. Orthopedics 2014; 37(8): 547–555.

Hart

McCarthy

Ames

et al . Proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2013; 24(2): 213–218.

10.

Lau

Clark

Scheer

et al . Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review of the literature as a background to classification development. Spine 2014; 39(25): 2093–2102.

11.

Smith

Annis

Lawrence

et al . Early proximal junctional failure in patients with preoperative sagittal imbalance. Evid Based Spine Care J 2013; 4(2): 163–164.

12.

Chou

Lau

Skelly

et al . Dynamic stabilization versus fusion for treatment of degenerative spine conditions. Evid Based Spine Care J 2011; 2(3): 33–42.

13.

Kelly

Mok

Berven

Dynamic constructs for spinal fusion: an evidence-based review. Orthop Clin North Am 2010; 41(2): 203–215.

14.

Gornet

Chan

Coleman

et al . Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs. J Biomech Eng 2011; 133(8): 081009.

15.

Anderson

Ellis

Weiss

JA.

Verification, validation and sensitivity studies in computational biomechanics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2007; 10(3): 171–184.

16.

Castellvi

Huang

Vestgaarden

et al . Stress reduction in adjacent level discs via dynamic instrumentation: a finite element analysis. SAS J 2007; 1(2): 74–81.

17.

Thawrani

Glos

Coombs

et al . Transverse process hooks at upper instrumented vertebra provide more gradual motion transition than pedicle screws. Spine 2014; 39(14): E826–E832.

18.

Tremblay

Mac-Thiong

Brailovski

et al . Braided tubular superelastic cables provide improved spinal stability compared to multifilament sublaminar cables. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2015; 229(9): 645–651.

19.

Schmidt

Heuer

Drumm

et al . Application of a calibration method provides more realistic results for a finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment. Clin Biomech 2007; 22(4): 377–384.

20.

Lin

Tsai

Chang

GL.

Distribution and regional strength of trabecular bone in the porcine lumbar spine. Clin Biomech 1997; 12(5): 331–336.

21.

Schmidt

Kettler

Heuer

et al . Intradiscal pressure, shear strain, and fiber strain in the intervertebral disc under combined loading. Spine 2007; 32(7): 748–755.

22.

Pintar

Yoganandan

Myers

et al . Biomechanical properties of human lumbar spine ligaments. J Biomech 1992; 25(11): 1351–1356.

23.

Aziz

Galbusera

Bellini

et al . Porcine models in spinal research: calibration and comparative finite element analysis of various configurations during flexion-extension. Comp Med 2008; 58(2): 174–179.

24.

Shirazi-Adl

Ahmed

Shrivastava

SC.

Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine 1986; 11(9): 914–927.

25.

Brummund

Brailovski

Petit

et al . Impact of anchor type on porcine lumbar biomechanics: finite element modelling and in-vitro validation. Clin Biomech 2017; 43: 86–94.

26.

Brummund

Brailovski

Facchinello

et al . Implementation of a 3D porcine lumbar finite element model for the simulation of monolithic spinal rods with variable flexural stiffness. In: 37th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), Milan, 25–29 August 2015. New York: IEEE.

27.

Facchinello

Brailovski

Petit

et al . Monolithic superelastic rods with variable flexural stiffness for spinal fusion: simplified finite element analysis of an instrumented spine segment. In: 36th annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Chicago, IL, 26–30 August 2014, pp.6605–6608. New York: IEEE.

28.

Facchinello

Brailovski

Petit

et al . Biomechanical assessment of the stabilization capacity of monolithic spinal rods with different flexural stiffness and anchoring arrangement. Clin Biomech 2015; 30(10): 1026–1035.

29.

Patwardhan

Havey

Meade

et al . A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 1999; 24(10): 1003–1009.

30.

Panjabi

MM.

Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech 2007; 22(3): 257–265.

31.

Rohlmann

Zander

Rao

et al . Applying a follower load delivers realistic results for simulating standing. J Biomech 2009; 42(10): 1520–1526.

32.

Wilke

Geppert

Kienle

Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the complete porcine spine in comparison with data of the human spine. Eur Spine J 2011; 20(11): 1859–1868.

33.

Metzger

Robinson

Svet

et al . Biomechanical analysis of the proximal adjacent segment after multilevel instrumentation of the thoracic spine: do hooks ease the transition? Global Spine J 2016; 6(4): 335–343.

34.

Facchinello

Brailovski

Petit

et al . Methodology and examples. In: 37th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), Milan, 25–29 August 2015. New York: IEEE.

35.

Turner

AWL

Dooley

Zatuschevsky

et al . Pure moment multi-segment spine testing system with 15 cadaveric human spines: validation study. In: 56th annual meeting of the orthopaedic research society, New Orleans, LA, 6–9 March 2010. Orthopaedic Research Society.

36.

Adams

May

Freeman

et al . Effects of backward bending on lumbar intervertebral discs. Relevance to physical therapy treatments for low back pain. Spine 2000; 25(4): 431–437.

37.

Rohlmann

Burra

Zander

et al . Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 2007; 16(8): 1223–1231.

38.

Swanson

Lindsey

Hsu

et al . The effects of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures. Spine 2003; 28(1): 26–32.

39.

Bono

Khandha

Vadapalli

et al . Residual sagittal motion after lumbar fusion: a finite element analysis with implications on radiographic flexion-extension criteria. Spine 2007; 32(4): 417–422.

40.

Busscher

Ploegmakers

Verkerke

et al . Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine. Eur Spine J 2010; 19(7): 1104–1114.

41.

Jin

Kim

Seo

et al . Effects of rod stiffness and fusion mass on the adjacent segments after floating mono-segmental fusion: a study using finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 2013; 22(5): 1066–1077.