Effect of nucleus replacement device properties on lumbar spine mechanics

Spine

Volumn 34, Issue 19, 2009, Pages 2022-2032

  Rundell, Steven A ^a   Guerin, Heather L ^a   Auerbach, Joshua D ^c   Kurtz, Steven M ^a,b  

^a EXPONENT INC   (United States)

^b DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Finite element; Lumbar nucleus pulposus replacement; Mechanical properties; Modulus; Spine biomechanics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE REMODELING; BONE STRESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; LUMBAR SPINE; NUCLEUS PULPOSUS; OSSIFICATION; OSTEOLYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; VERTEBRA BODY; YOUNG MODULUS;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISKECTOMY; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; JOINT PROSTHESIS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; MODELS, ANATOMIC; PLIABILITY; PRESSURE; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROTATION; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 70349152237     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181af1d5a     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 2001;10:314-319
2. Pellise F, Hernandez A, Vidal X, et al. Radiologic assessment of all unfused lumbar segments 7.5 years after instrumented posterior spinal fusion. Spine 2007;32:574-579
3. Schulte TL, Leistra F, Bullmann V, et al. Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360 degrees fusion. Eur Spine J 2007;16:2152-2158
4. Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 2003;28:S110-7.
5. Auerbach JD, Wills BP, McIntosh TC, et al. Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 2007;32:527-536
6. Panjabi M, Henderson G, Abjornson C, et al. Multidirectional testing of one-and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine 2007;32:1311-1319
7. Coric D, Mummaneni PV. Nucleus replacement technologies. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;8:115-120
8. Bertagnoli R, Sabatino CT, Edwards JT, et al. Mechanical testing of a novel hydrogel nucleus replacement implant. Spine J 2005;5:672-681
9. Joshi A, Fussell G, Thomas J, et al. Functional compressive mechanics of a PVA/PVP nucleus pulposus replacement. Biomaterials 2006;27:176-184
10. Cloyd JM, Malhotra NR, Weng L, et al. Material properties in unconfined compression of human nucleus pulposus, injectable hyaluronic acid-based hydrogels and tissue engineering scaffolds. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1892-1898
11. Johannessen W, Elliott DM. Effects of degeneration on the biphasic material properties of human nucleus pulposus in confined compression. Spine 2005; 30:E724-9.
12. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 2007;28:4845-4869
13. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, et al. Contribution of disc degeneration to osteophyte formation in the cervical spine: a biomechanical investigation. J Orthop Res 2001;19:977-984
14. Fernstrom U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1966;357:154-159
15. Bono CM, Garfin SR. History and evolution of disc replacement. Spine J 2004;4:145S-50.
16. Bertagnoli R, Schonmayr R. Surgical and clinical results with the PDN prosthetic disc-nucleus device. Eur Spine J 2002;11(suppl 2):S143-8.
17. Allen MJ, Schoonmaker JE, Bauer TW, et al. Preclinical evaluation of a poly (vinyl alcohol) hydrogel implant as a replacement for the nucleus pulposus. Spine 2004;29:515-523
18. Denoziere G, Ku DN. Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech 2006;39:766-775
19. Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, et al. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an arti-ficial disc. Spine 2001;26:E122-9.
20. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, 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
21. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, et al. The importance of the endplate for interbody cages in the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2003;12:556-561
22. Moumene M, Geisler FH. Comparison of biomechanical function at ideal and varied surgical placement for two lumbar artificial disc implant designs: mobile-core versus fixed-core. Spine 2007;32:1840-1851
23. Noailly J, Lacroix D, Planell JA. Finite element study of a novel intervertebral disc substitute. Spine 2005;30:2257-2264
24. Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Zander T, 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
25. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G. Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants. Eur Spine J 2005; 14:445-453
26. Meakin JR. Replacing the nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disk: prediction of suitable properties of a replacement material using finite element analysis. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001;12:207-213
27. Rundell SA, Auerbach JD, Kurtz SM. Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains. Spine 2008;33: 2510-2517
28. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott Company; 1990.
29. Yosibash Z, Padan R, Joskowicz L, et al. A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. J Biomech Eng 2007;129:297-309.
30. Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res 2005;23:549-554
31. Ulrich D, van Rietbergen B, Laib A, et al. The ability of three-dimensional structural indices to reflect mechanical aspects of trabecular bone. Bone 1999;25:55-60.
32. Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech 2003;36:897-904.
33. Kopperdahl DL, Keaveny TM. Yield strain behavior of trabecular bone. J Biomech 1998;31:601-608
34. Mosekilde L, Danielsen CC. Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabec-ular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals. Bone 1987;8:79-85.
35. Hansson TH, Keller TS, Panjabi MM. A study of the compressive properties of lumbar vertebral trabeculae: effects of tissue characteristics. Spine 1987; 12:56-62.
36. Silva MJ, Keaveny TM, Hayes WC. Load sharing between the shell and centrum in the lumbar vertebral body. Spine 1997;22:140-150
37. Polikeit A, Nolte LP, Ferguson SJ. The effect of cement augmentation on the load transfer in an osteoporotic functional spinal unit: finite-element analysis. Spine 2003;28:991-996
38. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Simon U, 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;21:337-344
39. Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava SC. Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine 1986;11:914-927
40. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Schmidt H, 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
41. Schmidt H, Heuer F, Drumm J, et al. Application of a calibration method provides more realistic results for a finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2007;22:377-384
42. Frei H, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, et al. The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine 2001;26:2080-2089
43. Yamamoto I, Panjabi MM, Crisco T, et al. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint. Spine 1989;14:1256-1260
44. Mimura M, Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, et al. Disc degeneration affects the multidirectional flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 1994;19:1371-1380
45. Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, et al. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76:413-424
46. Fujiwara A, Lim TH, An HS, et al. The effect of disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis on the segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 2000;25:3036-3044
47. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:418-423
48. Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J 2006;15:913-922
49. Nagaraja S, Couse TL, Guldberg RE. Trabecular bone microdamage and microstructural stresses under uniaxial compression. J Biomech 2005;38: 707-716
50. Spoor CW, Veldpaus FE. Rigid body motion calculated from spatial coordinates of markers. J Biomech 1980;13:391-393
51. Challis JH. A procedure for determining rigid body transformation parameters. J Biomech 1995;28:733-737
52. Weinans H, Sumner DR, Igloria R, et al. Sensitivity of periprosthetic stress-shielding to load and the bone density-modulus relationship in subject-specific finite element models. J Biomech 2000;33:809-817
53. Kerner J, Huiskes R, van Lenthe GH, et al. Correlation between preoperative periprosthetic bone density and postoperative bone loss in THA can be explained by strain-adaptive remodelling. J Biomech 1999;32:695-703.
54. Heuer F, Schmidt H, Klezl Z, et al. Stepwise reduction of functional spinal structures increase range of motion and change lordosis angle. J Biomech 2007;40:271-280
55. Schmidt H, Kettler A, Heuer F, et al. Intradiscal pressure, shear strain, and fiber strain in the intervertebral disc under combined loading. Spine 2007; 32:748-755
56. Adams MA, Hutton WC. Gradual disc prolapse. Spine 1985;10:524-531
57. Goel VK, Monroe BT, Gilbertson LG, 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
58. Meakin JR, Reid JE, Hukins DW. Replacing the nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disc. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2001;16:560-565
59. Klara PM, Ray CD. Artificial nucleus replacement: clinical experience. Spine 2002;27:1374-1377
60. Kumar N, Judith MR, Kumar A, et al. Analysis of stress distribution in lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2005;30:1731-1735
61. Bartels RH, Donk RD, Feuth T. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical carbon fiber cages. Neurosurgery 2006;58:502-8; discussion 8.
62. Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, et al. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J 2003;12:513-516
63. Barsa P, Suchomel P. Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1395-1400
64. Choi JY, Sung KH. Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages. Eur Spine J 2006;15:16-22.
65. Beutler WJ, Peppelman WC Jr. Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard and paired BAK Proximity cages: subsidence incidence, subsidence factors, and clinical outcome. Spine J 2003;3:289-293
66. McNally DS, Shackleford IM, Goodship AE, et al. In vivo stress measurement can predict pain on discography. Spine 1996;21:2580-2587
67. Mulholland RC. The myth of lumbar instability: the importance of abnormal loading as a cause of low back pain. Eur Spine J 2008;17:619-625
68. Noailly J, Wilke HJ, Planell JA, et al. How does the geometry affect the internal biomechanics of a lumbar spine bi-segment finite element model? Consequences on the validation process. J Biomech 2007;40:2414-2425