The objective of this study was to develop an improved finite element (FE) model of a lumbar functional spinal unit (FSU) and to subsequently analyse the deviations in load transfer owing to implantation. The effects of loading and boundary conditions on load transfer in intact and implanted FSUs and its relationship with the potential risk of vertebral fracture were investigated. The FE models of L1-L5 and L3-L4 FSUs, intact and implanted, were developed using patient-specific CT-scan dataset and segmentation of cortical and cancellous bone regions. The effect of submodelling technique, as compared to artificial boundary conditions, on the elastic behaviour of lumbar spine was examined. Applied forces and moments, corresponding to physiologic movements, were used as loading conditions. Results indicated that the loading and boundary conditions considerably affect stress-strain distributions within a FSU. This study, based on an improved FE model of a vertebra, highlights the importance of using the submodelling technique to adequately evaluate the mechanical behaviour of a FSU. In the intact FSU, strains of 200–400 µε were observed in the cancellous bone of vertebral body and pedicles. High equivalent stresses of 10–25 MPa and 1–5 MPa were generated around the pars interarticularis for cortical and cancellous regions, respectively. Implantation caused reductions of 85%–92% in the range of motion for all movements. Insertion of the intervertebral cage resulted in major deviations in load transfer across a FSU for all movements. The cancellous bone around cage experienced pronounced increase in stresses of 10–15 MPa, which indicated potential risk of failure initiation in the vertebra.
AyturkUMPuttlitzCM.Parametric convergence sensitivity and validation of a finite element model of the human lumbar spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2011; 14(8): 695–705.
2.
DreischarfMZanderTShirazi-AdlA.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.
3.
ZhangQHTeoEC.Finite element application in implant research for treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Med Eng Phys2008; 30: 1246–1256.
4.
SchmidtHGalbuseraFRohlmannA, et al. Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on spine kinematics and facet joint loads in flexion and extension: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J2012; 21(5): 663–674.
5.
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.
6.
RohlmannABurraNKZanderT, 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 J2007; 16(8): 1223–1231.
7.
ZanderTRohlmannABurraNK, et al. Effect of a posterior dynamic implant adjacent to a rigid spinal fixator. Clin Biomech2006; 21(8): 767–774.
8.
LiQYKimHSonJ, et al. Biomechanical analysis of lumbar decompression surgery in relation to degenerative changes in the lumbar spine – validated finite element analysis. Comput Biol Med2017; 89: 512–519.
9.
GoelVKKongWHanJS, et al. A combined finite element and optimisation investigation of lumbar spine mechanics with and without muscles. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1993; 18(11): 1531–1541.
10.
LavasteFSkalliWRobinS, et al. Three-dimensional geometrical and mechanical modelling of the lumbar spine. J Biomech1992; 25(10): 1153–1164.
11.
BreauCShirazi-AdlADe GuiseJ.Reconstruction of a human ligamentous lumbar spine using CT images - a three-dimensional finite element mesh generation. Ann Biomed Eng1991; 19(3): 291–302.
12.
ZanderTRohlmannAKlücknerC, et al. Comparison of the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine following mono- and bisegmental stabilisation. Clin Biomech2002; 17(6): 439–445.
13.
NiemeyerFWilkeHJSchmidtH.Geometry strongly influences the response of numerical models of the lumbar spine - a probabilistic finite element analysis. J Biomech2012; 45: 1414–1423.
14.
Shirazi-AdlSAShrivastavaSCAhmedAM.Stress analysis of the lumbar disc-body unit in compression. A three-dimensional non-linear finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1984; 9(2): 120–134.
15.
SylvestrePLVillemureIAubinCE.Finite element modeling of the growth plate in a detailed spine model. Med Biol Eng Comput2007; 45(10): 977–988.
16.
ChenSILinRMChangCH.Biomechanical investigation of pedicle screw-vertebrae complex: a finite element approach using bonded and contact interface conditions.Med Eng Phys2003; 25(4): 275–282.
17.
BiswasJKRanaMMajumderS, et al. Effect of two-level pedicle-screw fixation with different rod materials on lumbar spine: a finite element study. J Orthop Sci2018; 23(2): 258–265.
18.
BoccaccioAVenaPGastaldiD, et al. Finite element analysis of cancellous bone failure in the vertebral body of healthy and osteoporotic subjects. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2008; 222: 1023–1036.
19.
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: S17–S22.
20.
AhujaSMoideenANDudhniwalaAG, et al. Lumbar stability following graded unilateral and bilateral facetectomy: a finite element model study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2020; 75: 105011.
21.
GoelVKMonroeBTGilbertsonLG, et al. Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in the disc. Finite element analysis of the L3-L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20(6): 689–698.
22.
MosekildeLMosekildeLDanielsenCC.Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabecular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals. Bone1987; 8(2):79–85.
23.
MizrahiJSilvaMJKeavenyTM, et al. Finite-element stress analysis of the normal and osteoporotic lumbar vertebral body. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1993; 18(14): 2088–2096.
24.
WolframUWilkeHJZyssetPK.Rehydration of vertebral trabecular bone: influence of anisotropy, its stiffness and the indentation work with a view to age, gender and vertebral level. Bone2010; 46: 348–354.
25.
BacaVHorakZMikulenkaP, et al. Comparison of an inhomogeneous orthotropic and isotropic material models used for FE analyses. Med Eng Phys2008; 30: 924–930.
26.
PengLBaiJZengX, et al. Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Med Eng Phys2006; 28: 227–233.
27.
VerhulpERietbergenVBHuiskesR.Comparison of micro-level and continuum-level voxel models of the proximal femur. J Biomech2006; 39: 2951–2957.
28.
FaganMJJulianSSiddallDJ, et 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(5): 299–314.
29.
FantigrossiAGalbuseraFRaimondiMT, et al. Biomechanical analysis of cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Med Eng Phys2007; 29(1): 101–109.
30.
RohlmannAZanderTSchmidtH, et 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(13): 2484–2490.
31.
WilliamsJRNatarajanRNAnderssonJ.Inclusion of regional poroelastic material properties better predicts biomechanical behavior of lumbar discs subjected to dynamic loading. J Biomech2007; 40(9): 1981–1987.
32.
KimYVanderbyR.Finite element analysis of interbody cages in a human lumbar spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2000; 3: 257–272.
33.
PolikeitAFergusonSJNolteLP, et al. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J2003; 12(4): 413–420.
34.
LeeTHChungCJWangCW, et al. Computational comparison of three posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques by using porous titanium interbody cages with 50% porosity. Comput Biol Med2016; 71: 35–45.
35.
WilkeHJRohlmannANellerS, et al. ISSLS prize winner: a novel approach to determine trunk muscle forces during flexion and extension: a comparison of data from an in vitro experiment and in vivo measurements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2003; 28: 2585–2593.
36.
PatwardhanAGHaveyRMMeadeKP, et al. A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1999; 24: 1003–1009.
37.
ZanderTRohlmannACalisseJ, et al. Estimation of muscle forces in the lumbar spine during upper-body inclination. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2001; 16: S73–S80.
38.
GhezelbashFSchmidtHShirazi-AdlA, et al. Internal load-sharing in the human passive lumbar spine: review of in vitro and finite element studies. J Biomech2020; 102: 109441.
39.
BaroudGNemesJHeiniP, et al. Load shift of the intervertebral disc after a vertebroplasty: a finite element study. Eur Spine J2003; 12(4): 421–426.
40.
HiranoTHasegawaKTakahashiHE, et al. Structural characteristics of the pedicle and its role in screw stability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1997; 22(21): 2504–2519; discussion 2510.
41.
ChenCSChengCKLiuCL, et al. Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phy2001; 23(7): 485–493.
42.
MorganEFBayraktarHHKeavenyTM.Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech2003; 36(7): 897–904.
43.
TaddeiFPancantiAVicecontiM.An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med Eng Phys2004; 26(1): 61–69.
44.
GhoshRGuptaS.Bone remodelling around cementless composite acetabular components: the effects of implant geometry and implant–bone interfacial conditions. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2014; 32: 257–269.
45.
MukherjeeKGuptaS.Combined bone ingrowth and remodeling around uncemented acetabular component: a multiscale mechanobiology-based finite element analysis. J Biomech Eng2017; 139(9): 1–12.
46.
SutharPPatelRMehtaC, et al. MRI evaluation of lumbar disc degenerative disease. J Clin Diagn Res2015; 9(4): TC04–TC09.
47.
GuptaSvan der HelmFCTvan KeulenF.Stress analysis of cemented glenoid prostheses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Biomech2004; 37: 1777–1786.
48.
ZhongZCChenSHHungCH.Load- and displacement- controlled finite element analyses on fusion and non-fusion spinal implants. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2008; 223: 143–157.
49.
YamamotoIPanjabiMMCriscoT, et al. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1989; 14: 1256–1260.
50.
ZhongZCWeiSHWangJP, et al. Finite element analysis of the lumbar spine with a new cage using a topology optimisation method. Med Eng Phys2006; 28(1): 90–98.
51.
BerksonMHSchultzAB.Mechanical properties of human lumbar spine lotion segments –Part 19: responses in compression and shear; influence of gross morphology. J Biomech Eng1979; 101: 53–57.
52.
Shirazi-AdlAParnianpourM.Load-bearing and stress analysis of the human spine under a novel wrapping compression loading. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2000; 15: 718–725.
53.
MorganEFKeavenyTM.Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech2001; 34: 569–577.
54.
RadcliffeIAJTaylorM. Investigation into the effect of cementing techniques on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multi-femur finite element analysis. Clin Biomech2007; 22: 422–430.
55.
PalBGuptaSNewAMR. Influence of the change in stem length on the load transfer and bone remodelling for a cemented resurfaced femur. J Biomech2010; 43(15): 2908–2914.
56.
GhoshRPalBGhoshD, et al. Finite element analysis of a hemi-pelvis: the effect of inclusion of cartilage layer on acetabular stresses and strain. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2015; 18(7): 697–710.
57.
VerhulpEVan RietbergenBMullerR, et al. Micro-finite element simulation of trabecular-bone post-yield behaviour – effects of material model, element size and type. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2008; 11(4): 389–395.
58.
CharriereEABeutlerTCarideM, et al. Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system. Eur Spine J2006; 15(1): 74–81.
59.
GrassmannSOxlandTRGerichU, et al. Constrained testing conditions affect the axial rotation response of lumbar functional spinal units. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1998; 23(10): 1155–1162.
60.
ZhangZLiHFogelGR, et al. Finite element model predicts the biomechanical performance of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with various porous additive manufactured cages. Comput Biol Med2018; 95: 167–174.
61.
HongoMAbeEShimadaY, et al. Surface strain distributionon thoracic and lumbar vertebrae under axial compression. The role in burst fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1999; 24(12): 1197–1202.
62.
TyndykMABarronVMchughPE, et al. Generation of a finite element model of the thoracolumbar spine. Acta Bioeng Biomech2007; 9(1): 35–46.
63.
ErbulutDUZafarparandehIHassanCR, et al. Determination of the biomechanical effect of an interspinous process device on implanted and adjacent lumbar spinal segments using a hybrid testing protocol: a finite-element study. J Neurosurg Spine2015; 23(2): 200–208.
64.
MásYGraciaLIbarzE, et al. Finite element simulation and clinical followup of lumbar spine biomechanics with dynamic fixations. PLoS One2017; 12(11): e0188328.
65.
LaffertyJFWinterWGGambaroSA.Fatigue characteristics of posterior elements of vertebrae. J Bone Joint Surg Am1977; 59(2): 154–158.
66.
RohlmannAZanderTRaoM, et al. Applying a follower load delivers realistic results for simulating standing. J Biomech2009; 42(10): 1520–1526.
67.
PatwardhanAGHaveyRMCarandangG, et al. Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine. J Orthop Res2003; 21: 540–546.
68.
KiapourAAmbatiDHoyRW, et al. Effect of graded facetectomy on biomechanics of Dynesys dynamic stabilization system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2012; 37: E581–E589.
69.
EdwardsWTZhengYFerreraLA, et al. Structural features and thickness of the vertebral cortex in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2001; 26(2): 218–225.
70.
XuMYangJLiebermanIH, et al. Lumbar spine finite element model for healthy subjects: development and validation. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2017; 20(1): 1–15.
