. 2022 Feb 14;143:105320.
doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105320.
Online ahead of print.
Affiliations
Affiliations
- 1 Key Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology, Ministry of Education, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100083, China.
- 2 Key Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology, Ministry of Education, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100083, China. Electronic address: [email protected].
- 3 Key Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology, Ministry of Education, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100083, China; School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China. Electronic address: [email protected].
Item in Clipboard
Ning-Ze Zhang et al.
Comput Biol Med.
.
Display options
Format
. 2022 Feb 14;143:105320.
doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105320.
Online ahead of print.
Affiliations
- 1 Key Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology, Ministry of Education, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100083, China.
- 2 Key Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology, Ministry of Education, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100083, China. Electronic address: [email protected].
- 3 Key Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology, Ministry of Education, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100083, China; School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China. Electronic address: [email protected].
Item in Clipboard
Display options
Format
Abstract
Biomechanical changes at the adjacent segments after interbody fusion are common instigators of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). This study aims to investigate how the presence of a lordotic porous cage affects the biomechanical performance of the adjacent segments. A finite element model (FEM) of a lumbar spine implanted with a lordotic cage at L3-L4 was validated by in-vitro testing. The stress distribution on the cage and range of motion (ROM) of L3-L4 were used to assess the stability of the implant. Three angles of cage (0° = non-restoration, 7° = normal restoration and 11° = over-restoration) were modelled with different porosities (0%, 30% and 60%) and evaluated in the motions of flexion, extension, lateral bending and rotation. The ROM, intervertebral disc pressure (IDP) and facet joint force (FJF) were used to evaluate biomechanical changes at the adjacent segments in each model. The results indicated that porous cages produced more uniform stress distribution, but cage porosity did not influence the ROM, IDP and FJF at L2-L3 and L4-L5. Increasing the cage lordotic angle acted to decrease the ROM and IDP, and increase the FJF of L4-L5, but did not alter the ROM of L2-L3. In conclusion, changes in ROM, IDP and FJF at the adjacent segments were mainly influenced by the lordotic angle of the cage and not by the porosity. A larger angle of lordotic cage was shown to reduce the ROM and IDP, and increase the FJF of the lower segment (L4-L5), but had little effect on the ROM of the upper segment (L2-L3).
Keywords:
Adjacent segment; Biomechanics; Finite element model; Lordotic cage; Porous cage.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cite