AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Nano Biomedicine and Engineering Article
PDF (9.2 MB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

Numerical Study of the Effect of Rigid and Dynamic Posterior Attachment Systems on Stress Reduction in Cortical and Spongy Bones of the Lumbar Segments L4-L5

Said Kebdani1, Samir Zahaf1( ), Bensmaine Mansouri1, Benaoumeur Aour2
Laboratoire de Mécanique Appliquée, Département de Génie Mécanique, Université des Sciences et de la technologie d'Oran Mohamed Boudiaf, USTO-MB, BP 1505, El M'naouer, 31000 Oran, Algérie. (Laboratory of Mechanical Application, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology of Oran Mohamed Boudiaf, USTO-MB, BP 1505, EL M'naouer, 31000, Oran, Algeria.)
Laboratoire de Biomécanique Appliquée et Biomatériaux, Ecole National Polytechnique d'Oran, BP 1523, EL M'naouer, 31000 Oran Algérie. (Laboratory of Biomedical Application and Biomaterials, National Polytechnique College of Oran, BP 1523, EL M'naouer, 31000 Oran Algérie.)
Show Author Information

Abstract

Posterior instrumentation is a common fixation method used in the treatment of spinal diseases. However, the role of different models of fixation system in improving fixation stability in these fractures has not been established. Comparative investigation between posterior rigid fixation (pedicle screw) and four models of posterior dynamic fixation (B Dyne, Elaspine, Bioflex, Coflex rivet) may elucidate the efficacy of each design. The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical differences between rigid fixation and dynamic fixation implantation by using finite element analyses. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of five fixation systems mounted on L4-L5 motion segment. In this numerical study, finite element model of an L4-L5 segment was developed from computed tomography image datasets. Five fixation devices were also implanted internally to the motion segment. Another model with an intact intervertebral disc was also analysed for comparison. Loads simulating the physiological flexion, extension and lateral bindings were applied to the superior surface of L4. Results showed that the Elaspine, Bioflex, Coflex rivet and pedicle screw fixation implantation could provide stability in all motions and reduce von Mises stress in the cortical and spongy bone at the surgical segment L4-L5. Moreover, maximal von Mises stress in the annulus disc was observed in dynamic systems but within the safe range. The greater movement of the motion segment was also appeared in dynamic fixations. Existence of the fixation systems reduced the stress on the intervertebral disc which might be exerted in intact cases. Use of the fixation devices could considerably reduce the load on the discs and prepare conditions for healing of the injured ones. Furthermore, dynamic modes of fixation conferred the possibility of movement to the motion segments in order to facilitate the spinal activities. The numerical results showed that the posterior fixation system (rigid and dynamic) played a very important role in the absorption and minimization of stresses. On the other hand, the tow systems (rigid fixation and dynamic fixation) played such a great role in reducing the stress compared to other synthetic discs. In general, the posterior fixation system gave a lower level of stress in the cortical bones and the spongy bones of the L4-L5 lumbar segment compared to the intact model.

Keywords

Lumbar segmentCorticalSpongyCoflex rivetB DyneBioflexElaspinePedicle screw fixationAnnulus discVon Mises stressFinite element analysis

References

[1]

R.M. Pilliar, Bone ingrowth and stress shielding with a porous surface coated fracture fixation plate. J. Biomed Mater Res, 1979, 13: 799.
Crossref Google Scholar
[2]

G. Rouhi, Biomechanics of osteoporosis: the importance of bone resorption and remodeling processes. Dionyssiotis (Ed.), Osteoporosis. InTech, 2012 : 59.
Crossref Google Scholar
[3]

H.K. Uhthoff, D. Boisvert, and M. Finnegan, Cortical porosis under plates-reaction to unloading or to necrosis. J. Bone Joint Surg, Am, 1994, 76: 1507.
Crossref Google Scholar
[4]

H.K. Uhthoff, Z.F.G. Jaworski, Bone loss in response to long-term immobilization. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br, 1978, 60 : 420.
Crossref Google Scholar
[5]

G.H. van Lenthe, M.C.D. Malefijt, R. Huiskes, Stress shielding after total knee replacement may cause bone resorption in the distal femur. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br, 1997, 79B: 117.
Crossref Google Scholar
[6]

K. Okuyama, Can insertional torque predict screw loosening and related failures? An in vivo study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine, 2000, 25: 858.
Crossref Google Scholar
[7]

H.K. Uhthoff, Bone reaction around screw threads. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res, 1975, 111: 305.
Google Scholar
[8]

J. Schatzker, J.G. Horne, and G. Sumnersmith, Reaction of cortical bone to compression by screw threads. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res, 1975, 111: 263.
Crossref Google Scholar
[9]

S.M. Perren, Reaction of cortical bone to compression. Acta Orthop. Scand, 1969, 125: 17.
Google Scholar
[10]

J.Y. Rho, R.B. Ashman, and C.H. Turner, Youngs modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material-ultrasonic and microtensile measurements. J. Biomech, 1993, 26: 111.
Crossref Google Scholar
[11]
J. Wolff, The law of bone remodeling. Springer, 1892 (original published in 1892, translated in 1986 by P. Maquet and R. Furlong).
[12]

G. Rouhi, A. Vahdati, A model for mechanical adaptation of trabecular bone incorporating cellular accommodation and effects of microdamage and disuse. Mech. Res. Commun, 2009, 36: 284.
Crossref Google Scholar
[13]
G. Rouhi, Theoretical aspects of bone remodeling and resorption processes. Ph. D. dissertation, Mechanical Engineering, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2006.
[14]

T.D. Brown, Toward an identification of mechanical parameters initiating periosteal remodeling—a combined experimental and analytic approach. J. Biomech. 1990, 23: 893.
Crossref Google Scholar
[15]

D.R. Carter, Mechanical loading histories and cortical bone remodeling. Calcif. Tissue Int, 1984, 36: S19.
Crossref Google Scholar
[16]

R. Huiskes, Effects of mechanical forces on maintenance and adaptation of form in trabecular bone. Nature, 2000, 405: 704.
Crossref Google Scholar
[17]

C.H. Turner, Three rules for bone adaptation to mechanical stimuli. Bone, 1998, 23: 399.
Crossref Google Scholar
[18]

A. Vahdati, Mechanically induced trabecular bone remodeling including cellular accommodation effect: A computer simulation. Trans. Can. Soc. Mech. Eng, 2008, 32: 371.
Crossref Google Scholar
[19]

G. Rouhi, A tri-phasic mixture model of bone resorption: theoretical investigations. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed, 2011, 4: 1947.
Crossref Google Scholar
[20]

G. Rouhi, Modeling bone resorption using mixture theory with chemical reactions. J. Mech. Mater Struct, 2007, 2: 1141.
Crossref Google Scholar
[21]

T.L. Halvorson, Effects of bone-mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine, 1994, 19: 2415.
Crossref Google Scholar
[22]

S.E. Asnis, Cancellous bone screw thread design and holding power. J. Orthop. Trauma, 1996, 10: 462.
Crossref Google Scholar
[23]

J.R. Chapman, Factors affecting the pullout strength of cancellous bone screws. J. Biomech. Eng. T. Asme, 1996, 118: 391.
Crossref Google Scholar
[24]

T.A. Decoster, Optimizing bone screw holding power. Clin. Res, 1990, 38: A213.
Google Scholar
[25]

J.D. Thompson, J.B. Benjamin, and J.A. Szivek, Pullout strengths of cannulated and noncannulated cancellous bone screws. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res, 1997, 341: 241.
Crossref Google Scholar
[26]

A. Gefen, Optimizing the biomechanical compatibility of orthopedic screws for bone fracture fixation. Med. Eng. Phys, 2002, 24: 337.
Crossref Google Scholar
[27]

P. Schuller-Gotzburg, 2D-finite element analyses and histomorphology of lag screws with and without a biconcave washer. J. Biomech, 1999, 32: 511.
Crossref Google Scholar
[28]

Q.H. Zhang, S.H. Tan, and S.M. Chou, Investigation of fixation screw pull-out strength on human spine. J. Biomech, 2004, 37: 479.
Crossref Google Scholar
[29]

D. Bozkaya, S. Muftu, A. Muftu, Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite elements analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent, 2004, 92: 523.
Crossref Google Scholar
[30]

O. Eraslan, O. Inan, The effect of thread design on stress distribution in a solid screw implant: a 3D finite element analysis. Clin. Oral Invest, 2010, 14: 411.
Crossref Google Scholar
[31]

G. Eskitaşçioğlu, Comparison of two and three dimensional models of finite element analysis. SÜ Dişhek Fak. Der, 2008, 17: 182.
Google Scholar
[32]

S. Faegh, S. Muftu, Load transfer along the bone-dental implant interface. J. Biomech, 2010, 43: 1761.
Crossref Google Scholar
[33]

H.K. Uhthoff, D.I. Bardos, and M. Liskovakiar, The advantages of less rigid fixation. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br, 1980, 62: 524.
Google Scholar
[34]

H.K. Uhthoff, D.I. Bardos, and M. Liskovakiar, The advantages of titanium-alloy over stainless-steel plates for the internal-fixation of fractures-an experimental study in dogs. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br, 1981, 63: 427.
Crossref Google Scholar
[35]

S.L.Y. Woo, A new approach to the design of internalfixation plates. J. Biomed. Mater. Res, 1983, 17: 427.
Crossref Google Scholar
[36]

A.R.M. Oka, T. Impelluso, A computational approach to orthopedic implant design optimization. Pre-ORS, 2006.
Google Scholar
[37]

J. Ao, Optimal design of thread height and width on an immediately loaded cylinder implant: a finite element analysis. Comput. Biol. Med, 2010, 40: 681.
Crossref Google Scholar
[38]

L. Jiang, Optimal selections of orthodontic mini-implant diameter and length by biomechanical consideration: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Adv. Eng. Software, 2009, 40: 1124.
Crossref Google Scholar
[39]

T.H. Lan, Biomechanical analysis of alveolar bone stress around implants with different thread designs and pitches in the mandibular molar area. Clin. Oral Invest, 2012, 16: 363.
Crossref Google Scholar
[40]

W. Kraemer, The Effect of thread length and location on extraction strengths of iliosacral lag screws. Injury, 1994, 25: 5.
Crossref Google Scholar
[41]

B. Negri, Biomechanical and bone histomorphological evaluation of two surfaces on tapered and cylindrical root form implants: An experimental study in dogs. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res, 2012.
Crossref Google Scholar
[42]

C.M. Stanford, R.A. Brand, Toward an understanding of implant occlusion and strain adaptive bone modeling and remodeling. J. Prosthet. Dent, 1999, 81: 553.
Crossref Google Scholar
[43]

G.S. Beaupre, T.E. Orr, and D.R. Carter, An approach for time-dependent bone modeling and remodelingtheoretical development. J. Orthop. Res, 1990, 8: 651.
Crossref Google Scholar
[44]

M.G. Mullender, R. Huiskes, and H. Weinans, A physiological approach to the simulation of bone remodeling as a self-organizational control process. J. Biomech, 1994, 27: 1389.
Crossref Google Scholar
[45]

H. Weinans, R. Huiskes, and H.J. Grootenboer, The behavior of adaptive bone remodeling simulation-models. J. Biomech, 1992, 25: 1425.
Crossref Google Scholar
[46]

A. Gefen, Computational simulations of stress shielding and bone resorption around existing and computerdesigned orthopaedic screws. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput, 2002, 40: 311.
Crossref Google Scholar
[47]

V. K, Goel, B. T, Monroe, L. G, Gilbertson, et al., Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in a disc. Finite element analysis of the L3–L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine, 1995, 20: 689-698.
Crossref Google Scholar
[48]

T. Smit, A. Odgaard, and E. Schneider, Structure and function of vertebral trabecular bone. Spine, 1997, 22: 2823-2833.
Crossref Google Scholar
[49]

M. Sharma, N.A. Langrana, and J. Rodriguez, Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine, 1995, 20: 887-900.
Crossref Google Scholar
[50]

K. K, Lee, E. C, Teo, Effects of laminectomy and facetectomy on the stability of the lumbar motion segment. Med Eng Phys, 2004, 26: 183-192.
Crossref Google Scholar
[51]

A. Rohlmann, T. Zander, H. Schmidt, et al., Analysis of the influence of disc degeneration on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar motion segment using the finite element method. J Biomech, 2006, 39: 2484-2490.
Crossref Google Scholar
[52]

Shirazi-Adl, A.M. Ahmed, and S.C. Shrivastava, Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine, 1986, 11: 914-927.
Crossref Google Scholar
[53]

A.A. White 3rd, M.M. Panjabi, Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edition. J.B. Lippincott Company, 1990.
Google Scholar
[54]

K.K. Lee, E.C. Teo, F.K. Fuss, et al., Finite element analysis for lumbar interbody fusion under axial loading. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2004, 51: 393-400.
Crossref Google Scholar
[55]

A. Polikeit, S.J. Ferguson, L.P. Nolte, et al., Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J, 2003, 12: 413-420.
Crossref Google Scholar
[56]

C.S. Chen, C.K. Cheng, C.L. Liu, et al., Stress analysis of the disc adjacent fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys, 2001, 23: 483-491.
Crossref Google Scholar
[57]

S.H. Chen, Z.C. Zhong, C.S. Chen, et al., Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. Med Eng Phys, 2009, 31(2): 244-253.
Crossref Google Scholar
[58]

Z.C. Zhong, S.H. Chen, and C.H. Hung, Load- and displacementcontrolled finite element analyses on fusion and non-fusion spinal implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 2009, 223(2): 143-157.
Crossref Google Scholar
[59]

R. Eberlein, G.A. Holzapfel, and C.A.J. Schulze-Bauer, An anisotropic constitutive model for annulus tissue, and enhanced finite element analysis of INT lumbar disc bodies. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 2001, 4(3): 209-230.
Crossref Google Scholar
[60]

P. Vena, G. Franzoso, D. Gastaldi, et al., A finite element model of the L4-L5 spinal motion segment: Biomechanical compatibility of an interspinous device. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 2005, 8(1): 7-16.
Crossref Google Scholar
[61]

H. Schmidt, F. Heuer, U. Simon, et al., Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 2006, 21(4): 337-344.
Crossref Google Scholar
Nano Biomedicine and Engineering
Volume 9 Issue 3,
September 2017
Pages 249-274
DOI: 10.5101/nbe.v9i3.p249-274
Cite this article:
Kebdani S, Zahaf S, Mansouri B, et al. Numerical Study of the Effect of Rigid and Dynamic Posterior Attachment Systems on Stress Reduction in Cortical and Spongy Bones of the Lumbar Segments L4-L5. Nano Biomedicine and Engineering, 2017, 9(3): 249-274. https://doi.org/10.5101/nbe.v9i3.p249-274

410

Views

16

Downloads

0

Crossref

1

Scopus

Altmetrics
Received: 30 August 2017
Accepted: 20 September 2017
Published: 30 September 2017
© 2017 Said Kebdani, Samir Zahaf, Bensmaine Mansouri, and Benaoumeur Aour.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Return