Motion analysis of lumbar vertebrae for different rod materials and flexible rod device – An experimental and finite element study

• Autorzy: Rana Masud , Biswas Jayanta Kumar , Roy Sandipan , Biswas Palash , Karmakar Santanu Kumar , Roychowdhury Amit

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1016/j.bbe.2020.01.005

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Different stabilization devices have been used for treating lumbar spine disorders, including fusion, dynamic stabilization devices, flexible rods etc., which possess a different level of limitations. A simple experimental procedure is developed using a prototype lumbar spine specimen (L1-S), to evaluate the biomechanical performance of the lumbar spine. The range of motions (ROM) are tested for pedicle screw made of stainless steel (SS) fixation, using Teflon rod, ultra high molecular weight poly ethylene (UHMWPE) rod, poly ether ether ketone (PEEK) rod and SS flexible rod device (FRD). SS pedicle screw is used for fixation on the prototype lumbar spine. Experimental results are validated and compared with finite element (FE) results. It is observed that, in both flexion and extension, reduction in ROM is higher for Teflon and UHMWPE as compared to PEEK and FRD system. Differences between experimental and numerical results are found to be within an acceptable limit of 5–11%. For flexibility study, both numerical and experimental results support that PEEK rod plays an effective and important role among all the semi-rigid rods. The FRD devices are found to preserve the flexibility of the segment considerably better than PEEK rod.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

lumbar vertebrae; biomechanical testing; lumbar implant; flexible device; finite element analysis

PL

kręg lędźwiowy; test biomechaniczny; implant lędźwiowy; analiza elementów skończonych

• Wydawca: Nałęcz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering of the Polish Academy of Sciences ; Elsevier
• Czasopismo: Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 40, no. 1
• Strony: 415--425
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 57 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Rana Masud

• Department of Aerospace Engineering & Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, West Bengal, India

autor

Biswas Jayanta Kumar

• Department of Mechanical Engineering, JIS College of Engineering, Kalyani, West Bengal, 741235, India

autor

Roy Sandipan

• Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chennai, India

autor

Biswas Palash

• Department of Mechanical Engineering, JIS College of Engineering, Kalyani, West Bengal, India

autor

Karmakar Santanu Kumar

• Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, West Bengal, India

autor

Roychowdhury Amit

• Department of Aerospace Engineering & Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, West Bengal, India

Bibliografia

• [1] van Hooff ML, Mannion AF, Staub LP, Ostelo RW, Fairbank JC. Determination of the Oswestry Disability Index score equivalent to a ‘‘satisfactory symptom state’’ in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine-a Spine Tango registry-based study. Spine J 2016;16(10):1221–30.
• [2] Nachemson A. The role of spine fusion: question 8. Spine 1981;6(3):306–7.
• [3] Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet 2018;391(10137):2356–67.
• [4] Hestoek L, Leboeuf-Yde C. Are chiropractic tests for the lumbo-pelvic spine reliable and valid? A systematic critical literature review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000;23 (4):258–75.
• [5] Fritz JM, Piva SR. Physical impairment index: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with acute low back pain. Spine 2003;28(11):1189–94.
• [6] Panjabi MM, Brand Jr RA, White III AA. Three-dimensional flexibility and stiffness properties of the human thoracic spine. J Biomech 1976;9(4):185–92.
• [7] Meng X, Bruno AG, Cheng B, Wang W, Bouxsein ML, Anderson DE. Incorporating six degree-of-freedom intervertebral joint stiffness in a lumbar spine musculoskeletal model-method and performance in flexed postures. J Biomech Eng 2015;137(10):101008.
• [8] Biswas JK, Karmakar S, Majumder S, Banerjee PS, Saha S, Chowdhury AR. Optimization of spinal implant screw for lower vertebra through finite element studies. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2014;24(2-3).
• [9] Baluch DA, Patel AA, Lullo B, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Nguyen NL, et al. Effect of physiological loads on cortical and traditional pedicle screw fixation. Spine 2014;39(22):E1297–302.
• [10] Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Anasetti F, Ciavarro C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M. Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison. Med Eng Phys 2011;33(4):490–6.
• [11] Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord 1996;9(5):392–400.
• [12] Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg Spine 1999;90 (2):163–9.
• [13] Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. JBJS 2004;86(7):1497–503.
• [14] Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 2004;29(4):455–63.
• [15] Graf H. Spinal instability treatment using a flexible system. Lumbar surgery without fusion: soft stabilization system. Spine 1992;4:123–37.
• [16] Hadlow SV, Fagan AB, Hillier TM, Fraser RD. The Graf ligamentoplasty procedure: comparison with posterolateral fusion in the management of low back pain. Spine 1998;23 (10):1172–9.
• [17] Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. Spine 2003;28:418–23.
• [18] Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 2002;11(2):S170–8.
• [19] Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Stoll TM, Dubois G. Posterior dynamic stabilization systems: DYNESYS. Orthopedic Clinics 2005;36(3):363–72.
• [20] Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 2006;31 (4):442–9.
• [21] Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN, Hochschuler S, Mulholland RC. Load sharing characteristics of two novel soft stabilization devices in the lumbar motion segments-a biomechanical study in cadaver spine. In Proceedings of the Spine Arthroplasty Society Congress; 2003. May 1.
• [22] Sengupta DK. Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthopedic Clinics 2004;35 (1):43–56.
• [23] Sengupta DK, Mulholland RC. Fulcrum assisted soft stabilization system: a new concept in the surgical treatment of degenerative low back pain. Spine 2005;30 (9):1019–29.
• [24] Kim YS, Zhang HY, Moon BJ, Park KW, Ji KY, Lee WC, et al. Nitinol spring rod dynamic stabilization system and Nitinol memory loops in surgical treatment for lumbar disc disorders: short-term follow up. Neurosurg Focus 2007;22 (1):1–9.
• [25] Zhang HY, Park JY, Cho BY. The BioFlex system as a dynamic stabilization device: does it preserve lumbar motion? J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2009;46(5):431.
• [26] Zhang QH, Zhou YL, Petit D, Teo EC. Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of a dynamic stabilization device on disc loading under compression. Med Eng Phys 2009;31 (5):533–8.
• [27] Heo DH, Cho YJ, Cho SM, Choi HC, Kang SH. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar dynamic stabilization using pedicle screws and a nitinol spring rod system with 2- year minimum follow-up. Clin Spine Surg 2012;25(8):409–14.
• [28] Rienmüller AC, Krieg SM, Schmidt FA, Meyer EL, Meyer B. Reoperation rates and risk factors for revision 4 years after dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine. Spine J 2019;19 (1):113–20.
• [29] Han Y, Sun J, Luo C, Huang S, Li L, Ji X, et al. Comparison of pedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization and fusion surgery in the treatment of radiographic adjacent-segment degeneration: a retrospective analysis of single L5–S1 degenerative spondylosis covering 4 years. J Neurosurg Spine 2016;25(6):706–12.
• [30] Herren C, Simons RM, Bredow J, Oikonomidis S, Westermann L, Sobottke R, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus dynamic hybrid instrumentation: a prospective randomized clinical trial. World Neurosurg 2018;117:e228–37.
• [31] Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Alfieri A. Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014.
• [32] Mo Z, Li D, Zhang R, Chang M, Yang B, Tang S. Comparative effectiveness and safety of posterior lumbar interbody fusion, Coflex, Wallis, and X-stop for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018. Jun 30.
• [33] Moojen WA, Arts MP, Jacobs WC, van Zwet EW, van den Akker-van ME, Koes BW, et al. Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial. BNJ 2013;347:f6415.
• [34] Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Häussler K, Mack C, Steudel WI, Kettler A. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 2008;17(8):1049–56.
• [35] Mandigo CE, Sampath P, Kaiser MG. Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine: pedicle-based stabilization with the AccuFlex rod system. Neurosurg Focus 2007;22(1):1–4.
• [36] Biswas JK, Rana M, Majumder S, Karmakar SK, Roychowdhury A. Effect of two-level pedicle-screw fixation with different rod materials on lumbar spine: a finite element study. J Orthop Sci 2018;23(2):258–65.
• [37] Kang KT, Koh YG, Son J, Yeom JS, Park JH, Kim HJ. Biomechanical evaluation of pedicle screw fixation system in spinal adjacent levels using polyetheretherketone, carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone, and traditional titanium as rod materials. Compos Part B Eng 2017;130:248–56.
• [38] Chang TK, Huang CH, Liu YC, Chen WC, McClean CJ, Lai YS, et al. Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation on adjacent levels. Formos J Musculoskelet Disord 2013;4(2):42–7.
• [39] Chou YC, Chen DC, Hsieh WA, Chen WF, Yen PS, Harnod T, et al. Efficacy of anterior cervical fusion: comparison of titanium cages, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and autogenous bone grafts. J Clin Neurosci 2008;15(11):1240–5.
• [40] Ng JK, Kippers V, Richardson CA, Parnianpour M. Range of motion and lordosis of the lumbar spine: reliability of measurement and normative values. Spine 2001;26(1):53–60.
• [41] Van Herp G, Rowe P, Salter P, Paul JP. Three-dimensional lumbar spinal kinematics: a study of range of movement in 100 healthy subjects aged 20 to 60+ years. Rheumatology 2000;39(12):1337–40.
• [42] Lee SW, Wong KW, Chan MK, Yeung HM, Chiu JL, Leong JC. Development and validation of a new technique for assessing lumbar spine motion. Spine 2002;27(8):E215–20.
• [43] Littlewood C, May S. Measurement of range of movement in the lumbar spine—what methods are valid? A systematic review. Physiotherapy 2007;93(3):201–11.
• [44] Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry. FA Davis; 2016, Nov 18.
• [45] Ha TH, Saber-Sheikh K, Moore AP, Jones MP. Measurement of lumbar spine range of movement and coupled motion using inertial sensors–A protocol validity study. Man Ther 2013;18(1):87–91.
• [46] Straker LM, O'Sullivan PB, Smith AJ, Perry MC. Relationships between prolonged neck/shoulder pain and sitting spinal posture in male and female adolescents. Man Ther 2009;14 (3):321–9.
• [47] Pei BQ, Li H, Zhu G, Li DY, Fan YB, Wu SQ. The application of fiber-reinforced materials in disc repair. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013.
• [48] Leung LH, DiRosa A, Naguib HE. Physical and mechanical properties of poly (E-caprolactone)–Hydroxyapatite composites for bone tissue engineering applications. In ASME 2009 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2009. p. 17–23.
• [49] Sheikh Z, Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Verma V, Rashid H, Glogauer M. Biodegradable materials for bone repair and tissue engineering applications. Materials 2015;8 (9):5744–94.
• [50] Swamy A. Material Selection for Modeling of Intervertebral Disc. ISSN (Online):2347-3878.
• [51] Lo CC, Tsai KJ, Zhong ZC, Chen SH, Hung C. Biomechanical differences of Coflex-F and pedicle screw fixation combined with TLIF or ALIF–a finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2011;14(11):947–56.
• [52] Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, Crisco JJ. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. JBJS 1994;76(3):413–24.
• [53] Biswas JK, Roy S, Rana M, Halder S. A comparison of rigid, semi-rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a finite element study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2019;233(12):1292–8.
• [54] Biswas JK, Sahu TP, Rana M, Roy S, Karmakar SK, Majumder S, et al. Design factors of lumbar pedicle screws under bending load: a finite element analysis. Biocybern Biomed Eng 2019;39(1):52–62.
• [55] Roy S, Das M, Chakraborty P, Biswas JK, Chatterjee S, Khutia N, et al. Optimal selection of dental implant for different bone conditions based on the mechanical response. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2017;19(2).
• [56] Bhattacharya S, Roy S, Rana M, Banerjee S, Karmakar SK, Biswas JK. Biomechanical performance of a modified design of dynamic cervical implant compared to conventional ball and socket design of an artificial intervertebral disc implant: a finite element study. J Mech Med Biol 20191950017.
• [57] Suh J, Bae D. Mechanical properties of polytetrafluoroethylene composites reinforced with graphene nanoplatelets by solid-state processing. Compos Part B Eng 2016;95:317–23.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).