The effects of pre-stressed rods contoured by different bending techniques on posterior instrumentation of L4-L5 lumbar spine segment: A finite element study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2022
The effects of pre-stressed rods contoured by different bending techniques on posterior instrumentation of L4-L5 lumbar spine segment: A finite element study
Posterior pedicle screw instrumentation (PPSI) is a well-known method in lumbar spine surgery. Understanding how PPSI affects the biomechanics of the lumbar spine is an important issue. In particular, during PPSI operations, surgeons bend rods according to the patients’ spinal curvatures based on their own experiences. As a result, residual stresses develop on the rods due to this bending. Although many finite element-based biomechanical studies have been performed for PPSI, studies comparing the effects of residual stresses arising from rod contouring on the construct stresses are lacking. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the effects of residual stress in PPSI using rods contoured with a French bender and an in-situ bender, as well as comparing the differences in stress increment with straight and contoured rods for different physiological motions. Accordingly, a finite element (FE) model of the L4-L5 lumbar spine segment was developed for PPSI and the effects of residual stresses on rods were investigated by using different bending methods. In the simulations, it was found that rods contoured with a French bender with residual stress resulted in significantly more increased stress in PPSI compared to those contoured with an in-situ bender. The results of this study emphasize that increased stress in PPSI due to the residual stresses for different physiological motions may increase the risk of PPSI failures. Additionally, the finite element modeling approach employed here could be used as a fundamental tool for further investigations of topics such as PPSI fatigue life and failure studies.
ChoiJKimSShinDA. Biomechanical comparison of spinal fusion methods using interspinous process compressor and pedicle screw fixation system based on finite element method. J Korean Neurosurg Soc2016; 59:91–97.
2.
JainPKhanMR. Biomechanical study of lumbar spine (l2-l4) using hybrid stabilization device – a finite element analysis. Int J Manuf Mater Mech Eng2020; 10:20–32.
3.
XuMYangJLiebermanI, et al. Stress distribution in vertebral bone and pedicle screw and screw-bone load transfers among various fixation methods for lumbar spine surgical alignment: A finite element study.. Med Eng Phys2019; 63:26–32.
4.
SiaUTanBTeoY, et al. Post-implantation deformation of titanium rod and cobalt chrome rod in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Malays Orthop J2019; 13:14–19.
5.
ShiZWangGJinZ, et al. Use of the sagittal Cobb* angle to guide the rod bending in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures: a retrospective clinical study. J Orthop Surg Res2020; 15:574.
6.
AcarNKarakasliAKaraarslanAA, et al. The mechanical effect of rod contouring on rod-screw system strength in spine fixation. J Korean Neurosurg Soc2016; 59:425–429.
7.
DemuraSMurakamiHHayashiH, et al. Influence of rod contouring on rod strength and stiffness in spine surgery. Orthopedics2015; 38:e520–e523.
8.
TangJALeasureJMSmithJS, et al. Effect of severity of rod contour on posterior rod failure in the setting of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): a biomechanical study. Neurosurg2013; 72:276–282; discussion 283.
9.
SlivkaMAFanYKEckJC. The effect of contouring on fatigue strength of spinal rods: is it Okay to Re-bend and which materials are best?Spine Deform2013; 1:395–400.
10.
La BarberaLOttardiCVillaT. Comparative analysis of international standards for the fatigue testing of posterior spinal fixation systems: the importance of preload in ISO 12189. Spine J2015; 15:2290–2296.
11.
KimKDPanchalRMoldavskyM, et al. Effects of pre-contoured and in situ contoured rods on the mechanical strength and durability of posterior cervical instrumentation: a finite-element analysis and scanning electron microscopy investigation. Spine Deform2020; 8:569–576.
12.
BenzelEC. Biomechanics of spine stabilization. New York: Thieme Publishers, 2015, pp.481–494.
13.
ArdatovOMaknickasAAleknaV, et al. The finite element analysis of osteoporotic lumbar vertebral body by influence of trabecular bone apparent density and thickness of cortical shell. Acta Mech Automatica2017; 11:285–292.
14.
MavrychVBolgovaOGangulyP, et al. Age-related changes of lumbar vertebral body morphometry. Austin J Anat2014; 1: 1–7.
15.
ZhouSHMcCarthyIDMcGregorAH, et al. Geometrical dimensions of the lower lumbar vertebrae-analysis of data from digitised CT images. Eur Spine J2000; 9:242–248.
16.
EllingsonAMShawMNGiambiniH, et al. Comparative role of disc degeneration and ligament failure on functional mechanics of the lumbar spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2016; 19(9): 1009–1018.
17.
RitzelHAmlingMPöslM, et al. The thickness of human vertebral cortical bone and its changes in aging and osteoporosis: a histomorphometric analysis of the complete spinal column from thirty-seven autopsy specimens. J Bone Miner Res1997; 12:89–95.
18.
SilvaMJWangCKeavenyTM, et al. Direct and computed tomography thickness measurements of the human, lumbar vertebral shell and endplate. Bone1994; 15(4): 409–414.
19.
KurutzM. Finite element modelling of human lumbar spine. Finite element analysis. (Moratal D editor) London: InTechOpen, 2010.
20.
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; 20:98.
21.
ÖzmenRGünayM. Kinematical considerations related to prosthesis position and core radius on the biomechanics of the C5-C6 functional spinal unit. Eng Sci Technol Int J2019; 22(3): 786–793.
22.
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 Neurosurg2015; 23:200–208.
23.
TsouknidasAMichailidisNSavvakisS, et al. A finite element model technique to determine the mechanical response of a lumbar spine segment under complex loads. J Appl Biomech2012; 28:448–456.
24.
Shirazi-AdlA. On the fibre composite material models of disc annulus-comparison of predicted stresses. J Biomech1989; 22:357–365.
25.
WangKDengZWangH, et al. Influence of variations in stiffness of cervical ligaments on C5-C6 segment. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 72:129–137.
26.
GalbuseraFBelliniCMRaimondiMT, et al. Cervical spine biomechanics following implantation of a disc prosthesis. Med Eng Phys2008; 30:1127–1133.
27.
OzmenR. 2019. The design and performance investigation of an anti-fusion mobile disc prosthesis. PhD Thesis, Karabük University Press, Karabük.
28.
SchmidtHKettlerAHeuerF, et al. Intradiscal pressure, shear strain, and fiber strain in the intervertebral disc under combined loading. Spine2007; 32:748–755.
29.
NaserkhakiSArjmandNShirazi-AdlA, et al. Effects of eight different ligament property datasets on biomechanics of a lumbar L4-L5 finite element model. J Biomech2018; 70:33–42.
30.
YamamotoIPanjabiMMCriscoT, et al. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine1989; 14(11): 1256–1260.
31.
RohlmannANellerSClaesL, et al. Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine2001; 26(24): E557–E561.
32.
GuanYYoganandanNMooreJ, et al. Moment-rotation responses of the human lumbosacral spinal column. J Biomech2007; 40:1975–1980.
33.
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; 47:1757–1766.
34.
HeuerFSchmidtHKlezlZ, et al. Stepwise reduction of functional spinal structures increase range of motion and change lordosis angle. J Biomech2007; 40(2): 271–280.
35.
GomleksizCErbulutDUCanH, et al. A new lumbar fixation device alternative to pedicle-based stabilization for lumbar spine in vitro cadaver investigation. J Spinal Cord Med2020; 43:98–105.
36.
OktenogluTErbulutDUKiapourA, et al. Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine: in vitro cadaver investigation and a finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2015; 18:1252–1261.
37.
KangKTKimHJSonJ, et al. Comparing an instrumented posterior fixation system with rigid and semi-flexible rods using finite element analysis. Int J Precis Eng Manuf2015; 16(1): 163–170.
38.
AnjumZQayyumFKhushnoodS, et al. Prediction of non-propagating fretting fatigue cracks in Ti6Al4V sheet tested under pin-in-dovetail configuration: Experimentation and numerical simulation. Mater Des2015; 87:750–758.
39.
ZienkiewiczOCTaylorRL. The Finite Element Method. New York, NY: McGrawHill, 1989.
40.
LundMEde ZeeMAndersenMS, et al. On validation of multibody musculoskeletal models. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2012; 226(2): 82–94.
41.
DrougkasDKaratsisEPapagiannakiM, et al. Gait-specific optimization of composite footwear midsole systems, facilitated through dynamic finite element modelling. Appl Bionics Biomech2018; 2018:6520314.
42.
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 Suppl): S17–S22.
43.
ShinDSLeeKKimD. Biomechanical study of lumbar spine with dynamic stabilization device using finite element method. Comput Des2007; 39:559–567.
44.
Mohi EldinMMAliAM. Lumbar transpedicular implant failure: a clinical and surgical challenge and its radiological assessment. Asian Spine J2014; 8:281–297.
45.
ÖzalpHÖzkayaMYamanO, et al. Biomechanical comparison of transdiscal fixation and posterior fixation with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L5–S1 lumbosacral joint. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2018; 232:371–377.
46.
SchillingCKrügerSGruppTM, et al. The effect of design parameters of dynamic pedicle screw systems on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J2011; 20(2): 297–307.
47.
GuoLXWangQD. Biomechanical analysis of a new bilateral pedicle screw fixator system based on topological optimization. Int J Precis Eng Manuf2020; 21:1363–1374.
48.
LindseyCDevirenVXuZ, et al. The effects of rod contouring on spinal construct fatigue strength. Spine J2006; 31:1680–1687.
49.
NguyenTQBuckleyJMAmesC, et al. The fatigue life of contoured cobalt chrome posterior spinal fusion rods. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2011; 225:194–198.
