Finite element analysis of an intact lumbar spine model: Effects of loading under different coordinate systems

Abstract

Graphical abstract

Finite element (FE) analysis has been used in studying the biomechanics of the lumbar spine. While some FE studies used a follower load technique that intended to replace the compressing effect of local muscle force, other studies considered satisfying the relationship between the human body’s posture and the centre of gravity (CG) for investigating spine biomechanics. However, the above studies did not reveal the importance of a coordinate system that gratifies the posture-CG relation and follower load techniques. The present FE study compares the variation in ranges of motion (ROM) and stress-strain distributions due to the application of loading via different coordinate systems, follower (FCS) and global (GCS). A subject-specific computed tomography scan-based intact spine (L1-L5) FE model was developed and simulated for physiological movements. The FE results indicated a minimum deviation in ROM of 2.7° for the L1-L5 full model at all physiological activities between the defined coordinate systems. The observed variation for the L3-L4 functional spinal unit was between 4.7° and 19°. The von Mises strain in the vertebrae was between 0.0007 and 0.003 for the FCS case. In contrast, the peak von Mises strain for the GCS case was above the compressive yield strain limit of cancellous bone by 38.5%. The GCS model transferred the load unsymmetrically, whereas the distribution was symmetrical for the FCS case, without any potential risk of bone failure. These observations clearly indicate that the selection of the appropriate loading coordinate system is as crucial as the magnitude of loading.

Keywords

Lumbar spine follower load technique posture-CG relation finite element analysis ranges of motion loading and boundary conditions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Pradeep

Pal

. Biomechanical and clinical studies on lumbar spine fusion surgery: a review. Med Biol Eng Comput 2023; 61: 617–634.

Sandhu

Dowlati

Garica

. Lumbar arthroplasty: Past, present, and future. Neurosurg 2020; 86: 155–169.

David

. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 2007; 32: 661–666.

Talukdar

Mukhopadhyay

Dhara

et al. Numerical analysis of the mechanical behaviour of intact and implanted lumbar functional spinal units: effects of loading and boundary conditions. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2021; 235: 792–804.

Yang

Lieberman

et al. Lumbar spine finite element model for healthy subjects: development and validation. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2017; 20: 1–15.

Rohlmann

Neller

Claes

et al. Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2001; 26: E557–E561.

Wilke

Rohlmann

Neller

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 2003; 28: 2585–2593.

Patwardhan

Havey

Meade

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

Wilke

Wenger

Claes

. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 1998; 7: 148–154.

10.

Dolan

Adams

. Recent advances in lumbar spinal mechanics and their significance for modelling. Clin Biomech 2001; 16(Suppl 1): S8–S16.

11.

Fan

Guo

Zhao

. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Finite element analysis of the vibration characteristics of fused lumbar spine. World Neurosurg 2021; 150: e81–e88.

12.

Sanjay

Kumar

Chanda

. Stress-strain distribution in intact L4-L5 vertebrae under the influence of physiological movements: A finite element (FE) investigation. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2021; 1206: 012024.

13.

Ayturk

Puttlitz

. Parametric convergence sensitivity and validation of a finite element model of the human lumbar spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2011; 14: 695–705.

14.

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: 1223–1231.

15.

Faizan

Kiapour

et al. Biomechanical analysis of various footprints of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion devices. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014; 27: E118–E127.

16.

Zander

Rohlmann

Burra

et al. Effect of a posterior dynamic implant adjacent to a rigid spinal fixator. Clin Biomech 2006; 21: 767–774.

17.

et al. Biomechanical comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with 1 or 2 cages by finite-element analysis. Neurosurgery 2013; 73: ons198–ons205.

18.

Tang

Guan

et al. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurgery 2013; 72: ons21–ons26.

19.

Wang

Hua

et al. Biomechanical evaluation of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion on the adjacent segment: a finite element analysis. World Neurosurg 2019; 126: e819–e824.

20.

Zhang

Fogel

et al. Finite element model predicts the biomechanical performance of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with various porous additive manufactured cages. Comput Biol Med 2018; 95: 167–174.

21.

Yan

J-Z

Qiu

G-X

Z-H

et al. Finite element analysis in adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 2011; 7: 96–100.

22.

Zhang

Teo

. Finite element application in implant research for treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Med Eng Phys 2008; 30: 1246–1256.

23.

Baroud

Nemes

Heini

et al. Load shift of the intervertebral disc after a vertebroplasty: a finite-element study. Eur Spine J 2003; 12: 421–426.

24.

Zhong

Wei

Wang

et al. Finite element analysis of the lumbar spine with a new cage using a topology optimization method. Med Eng Phys 2006; 28: 90–98.

25.

Schmidt

Heuer

Wilke

. Which axial and bending stiffnesses of posterior implants are required to design a flexible lumbar stabilization system? J Biomech 2009; 42: 48–54.

26.

Morgan

Bayraktar

Keaveny

. Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech 2003; 36: 897–904.

27.

Chen

Cheng

Liu

et al. Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys 2001; 23: 483–491.

28.

Pal

Gupta

. The effect of primary stability on load transfer and bone remodelling within the uncemented resurfaced femur. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2011; 225: 549–561.

29.

Morgan

Keaveny

. Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech 2001; 34: 569–577.

30.

Sanjay

Bhardwaj

Kumar

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 Comput 2022; 60: 2501–2519.

31.

Wolfram

Wilke

H-J

Zysset

. Rehydration of vertebral trabecular bone: influences on its anisotropy, its stiffness and the indentation work with a view to age, gender and vertebral level. Bone 2010; 46: 348–354.

32.

Biswas

Rana

Majumder

et al. Effect of two-level pedicle-screw fixation with different rod materials on lumbar spine: A finite element study. J Orthop Sci 2018; 23: 258–265.

33.

Dreischarf

Zander

Shirazi-Adl

et al. Comparison of eight published static finite element models of the intact lumbar spine: predictive power of models improves when combined together. J Biomech 2014; 47: 1757–1766.