Additive manufacturing (AM) methods, which facilitate the production of complex structures with different geometries, have been used in producing interbody cages in recent years. In this study, the effects of Ti6Al4V alloy interbody lattice designed fusion cages between the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae where degenerative disc diseases occur were investigated using the finite element method. Face centered cubic (FCC), body centered cubic (BCC), and diamond structures were selected as the lattice structure suitable for the interbody cage. A kidney shaped interbody lumbar cage was designed. The designated lattice structures were selected by adjusting the cell sizes suitable for the designed geometry, and the mesh configuration was made by the lumbar lattice structure. 400 N Axial force and 7.5 N.m moments were applied to the spine according to lateral bending, flexion, and torsion. 400 N axial force and 7.5 N.m flexion moment is shown high strain and total deformation then lateral bending and torsion on BCC FCC and diamond lattice structured interbody cages. In addition, the effects of lattice structures under high compression forces were investigated by applying 1000 N force to the lattice structures. When von Mises stresses were examined, lower von Mises stress and strains were observed in the BCC structure. However, a lower total deformation was observed in the FCC. Due to the design of the BCC and the diamond structure, it is assumed that bone implant adhesion will increase. In the finite element analysis (FEA), the best results were shown in BCC structures.
MillecampsMTajerianMNasoL, et al. Lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration associated with axial and radiating low back pain in ageing SPARC-null mice. Pain2012; 153: 1167–1179.
MaKZhuangZGWangL, et al. The Chinese Association for the Study of Pain (CASP): consensus on the assessment and management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Pain Res Manag2019; 2019: 8957847.
9.
WeinsteinJNTostesonTDLurieJD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. N Engl J Med2008; 358: 794–810.
10.
KumarMRappoSFacchiniL, et al. Translation of three-dimensional printing for orthopedic devices. MRS Bull2022; 47: 49–58.
11.
MeenaVKKumarPKalraP, et al. Additive manufacturing for metallic spinal implants: A systematic review. Ann 3D Printed Med2021; 3: 100021.
12.
SadeghiniaPRoshanASGoudarziPK, et al. Finite element modeling and optimization of the lumbar interbody CAGE based on the Additive Manufacturing Method. J Appl Mech Tech Phys2022; 63: 231–239.
13.
MeenaVKKalraPSinhaRK. Finite element study on the influence of pore size and structure on stress shielding effect of additive manufactured spinal cage. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2022; 25: 566–577.
14.
FogelGMartinNLynchK, et al. Subsidence and fusion performance of a 3D-printed porous interbody cage with stress-optimized body lattice and microporous endplates - a comprehensive mechanical and biological analysis. Spine J2022; 22: 1028–1037.
15.
EganPWangXGreutertH, et al. Mechanical and biological characterization of 3D printed lattices. 3D Print Addit Manuf2019; 6: 73–81.
16.
XuNWeiFLiuX, et al. Reconstruction of the upper cervical spine using a personalized 3D-printed vertebral body in an adolescent with ewing sarcoma. Spine2016; 41: E50–E54.
17.
GirolamiMBorianiSBandieraS, et al. Biomimetic 3D-printed custom-made prosthesis for anterior column reconstruction in the thoracolumbar spine: a tailored option following en bloc resection for spinal tumors: preliminary results on a case-series of 13 patients. Eur Spine J2018; 27: 3073–3083.
18.
LearyOPCrozierJLiuDD, et al. Three-dimensional printed anatomic modeling for surgical planning and real-time operative guidance in complex primary spinal column tumors: single-center experience and case series. World Neurosurg2021; 145: e116–e126.
19.
KuleshovAAVetrileMSShkaruboAN, et al. Additive technologies in surgical treatment of spinal deformities. NN Priorov J Traumatol Orthoped2018; 25: 19–29.
20.
ZhangHJiangYWangB, et al. Direction-changeable lumbar cage versus traditional lumbar cage for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis. Med2018; 97: e9984.
21.
LeeYHChungCJWangCW, 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.
22.
VasconcellosLde CarvalhoYR, et al. Porous titanium by powder metallurgy for biomedical application: characterization, cell citotoxity and in vivo tests of osseointegration. In: Radovan HudakMPJM (eds.), Biomedical engineering - technical applications in Medicine. London: Intech, 2012, pp.47–74.
23.
KujalaSRyhänenJDanilovA, et al. Effect of porosity on the osteointegration and bone ingrowth of a weight-bearing nickel-titanium bone graft substitute. Biomater2003; 24: 4691–4697.
24.
De Andrada PereiraBWangsawatwongPLehrmanJ, et al. 18. Do differences in segmental angle of single level posterior lumbar fixation affect adjacent level biomechanics: cadaveric study of range of motion and optical disc strain. Spine J2021; 21: S9–S10.
25.
NizamNAHMMazlanMHSallehNSM, et al. Design and analysis of interbody fusion cage materials based on finite element analysis. In: 1st National biomedical engineering conference, NBEC, 2021, pp.7–12.
26.
ChenYLLaiOJWangY, et al. The biomechanical study of a modified lumbar interbody fusion-crenel lateral interbody fusion (CLIF): a three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2020; 23: 548–555.
27.
ZhuHZhongWZhangP, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of autologous bone-cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2020; 21: 379.
28.
RemusRLipphausANeumannM, et al. Calibration and validation of a novel hybrid model of the lumbosacral spine in ArtiSynth-The passive structures. PLoS One2021; 16: e0250456.
29.
MicaMCVoronovLICarandangG, et al. Biomechanics of an expandable lumbar interbody fusion cage deployed through transforaminal approach. Internet J Spine Surg2018; 12: 520–527.
30.
WangSMarkWMKimYH, et al. Determinants of incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity in heritable cardiac arrhythmia syndromes. Clin Biomech2014; 29: 155–160.
31.
SunJWangQCaiD, et al. A lattice topology optimization of cervical interbody fusion cage and finite element comparison with ZK60 and Ti-6Al-4V cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2021; 22: 390.
32.
HanZRenBZhangL, et al. Finite element analysis of a novel fusion strategy in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Biomed Res Int2022; 2022: 4266564.
33.
HuangS-FChangC-MLiaoC-Y, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of an osteoporotic anatomical 3D printed posterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with internal lattice design based on weighted topology optimization. Int J Bioprinting2023; 9: 697.
34.
LoenenACYNoaillyJItoK, et al. Patient-specific variations in local strain patterns on the surface of a trussed titanium interbody cage. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2022; 9: 1461750246.
35.
Vanaclocha-SaizAVanaclochaVAtienzaCM, et al. Finite element analysis of a bionate ring-shaped customized lumbar disc nucleus prosthesis. ACS Appl Bio Mater2022; 5: 172–182.
36.
KimYHChoiDKKimK. Investigation of the compressive stiffness of spinal cages in various experimental conditions based on finite element analysis. Proc IMechE. Part H, J Engineering in Medicine2012; 226: 341–344.
37.
CaiXSunMHuangY, et al. Biomechanical effect of L 4–L 5 intervertebral disc degeneration on the lower lumbar spine: A finite element study. Orthop Surg2020; 12: 917–930.
38.
LiangZCuiJZhangJ, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?BMC Musculoskelet Disord2020; 21: 117.
39.
TsuangF-YLiMJChuP-H, et al. Mechanical performance of porous biomimetic intervertebral body fusion devices: an in vitro biomechanical study. J Orthop Surg Res2023; 18: 71.
40.
BaiLGongCChenX. Additive manufacturing of customized metallic orthopedic implants: materials, structures, and surface modifications. Metals2019; 9: 1004.
41.
FernandesRJRGeeAKanawatiAJ, et al. Biomechanical comparison of subsidence between patient-specific and non-patient-specific lumbar interbody fusion cages. Glob Spine J2022; 2022: 1–9.
42.
RaffaMLNguyenVHHernigouP, et al. Stress shielding at the bone-implant interface: influence of surface roughness and of the bone-implant contact ratio. J Orthop Res2021; 39: 1174–1183.
43.
WuNLiSZhangB, et al. The advances of topology optimization techniques in orthopedic implants: A review. Med Biol Eng Comput2021; 59(9): 1673–1689.
44.
AokiYNakajimaATakahashiH, et al. Influence of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch on surgical outcomes of short-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2015; 16: 213.
45.
Öhman-MägiCHolubOWuD, et al. Density and mechanical properties of vertebral trabecular bone-A review. J Spine2021; 4: e1176.
46.
Fraga MartínezAA. Characterization of additively manufactured SS316L lattice geometries for lumbar interbody fusion cage application. Master of Science, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, 2020.
47.
TaniguchiNFujibayashiSTakemotoM, et al. Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment. Mater Sci Eng C2016; 59: 690–701.
