Comparison Among Load-, ROM-, and Displacement-Controlled Methods Used in the Lumbosacral Nonlinear Finite-Element Analysis

Kuo, Yi Jie; Lin, Shu; Wang, Chih Wei; Chen, Yeung Jen; Hwang, Jiun Ren

doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31828251f9

Cited by 32 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the same compressive preload combined with the same pure moment, the study summarize the comparison of the intersegmental responses between the intact model and previously published data under combined flexion-extension, left-right lateral bending, and left-right axial rotation. All the predicted responses were in good agreement with the published data [9,14]. Figure 2 showed the details of the in vitro data used in the comparison.…”

Section: Fe Modeling and Validationsupporting

confidence: 82%

Which is the better posterior lumbar dynamic device: Dynesys or BioFlex?

Qiu

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the biomechanical characteristics of the lumbar posterior dynamic devices: the Dynesys system and the BioFlex system. Methods: We validated the FE model of an lumbar spine (L3-S1) established by transferring the data, collected by 3D CT scan, to the FE software ABAQUS and comparing these data with the data from published studies. Then, were reconstructed by the lumbar posterior dynamic devices to analyze the range of motion (ROM) and stress distribution on the lumbar posterior dynamic devices. Results: The current lumbar FE model was able to measure the biomechanical changes in a follow-up surgery simulation. The total ROM of the surgery simulation models was substantially decreased compared with the total ROM of the intact group, and the Dynesys system group had the closest total ROM to the intact group. The maximal von Mises stress concentrate at the middle part of the screws in Dynesys system, but at the Nitinol memory loop in BioFlex system. The maximal stress level was only 49 MPa in Dynesys system, but 164 MPa in BioFlex system. Conclusion: Through the comparison of ROM and the stress distribution of the prosthesis, we find that the Dynesys system maybe has a better theoretical outcome.

show abstract

Section: Fe Modeling and Validationsupporting

confidence: 82%

Which is the better posterior lumbar dynamic device: Dynesys or BioFlex?

Qiu

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lumbosacral model from L1 to S1 segments has been developed and validated in the previous studies of the current authors (Chien et al, 2014;Chuang et al, 2012;Chuang et al, 2013). For a paired facet joint, the orientation and separation of the articulating surfaces were cautiously established to ensure a consistent unloaded neutral position within a range of around 0.5 mm.…”

Section: Lumbosacral Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interfaces of the facet joints were modeled as surface-to-surface contact elements in which articulating friction is ignored and only transmitted normal forces are considered. The criterion for controlling the same displacement of the lumbosacral top was adopted as a reasonable approach to evaluate the effects of the fusion and fixation on the adjacent segments (Chuang et al, 2013). The materials of all implants were assumed to have linearly elastic and isotropic material properties throughout.…”

Section: Finite-element Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus were modeled as dehydration grade III to simulate the loss of the disc elasticity. Experimental and numerical comparisons were used to validate the simplifications and assumptions of the finite-element model (Chuang et al, 2013). Using the cadaveric data, the results of the intact model were validated by the ROM of all discs for flexion, extension, rotation, and bending.…”

Section: Finite-element Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Removal of fixation construct could mitigate adjacent segment stress after lumbosacral fusion: A finite element analysis

Hsieh

Chen

et al. 2017

Clinical Biomechanics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, optimized nite element analysis (FEA), which is a widely used biomechanical research method, is an ideal approach for the accurate investigation of DDD pathogenesis and treatments [4][5][6][7][8][9]. A series of model validation methods have been implemented by comparing the differences in the range of motion (ROM), which is a key index for lumbar motility and stability, between the FEA results and those from widely cited in vitro studies [5,6,[9][10][11][12][13]. The accuracy (ACC) of the FEA models has been improved via model calibrations that used annulus and bone structures [13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement and calibration of the nucleus position and its cross-sectional area ratio to increase the accuracy of finite element analysis

Zhang

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgrounds: As a widely used biomechanical research method, finite element analysis (FEA) is an important tool for investigating the pathogenesis of disc degenerative diseases and optimizing spine surgical methods. However, the definitions of the relative nucleus position and its cross-sectional area ratio do not conform to a uniform standard, thus affecting the accuracy (ACC) of the FEA.Objectives: This study aimed to determine a precise definition of the relative nucleus position and its cross-sectional area ratio to increase the ACC of the following FEA studies.Methods: The lumbar relative nucleus position and its cross-sectional area ratio were measured from magnetic resonance imaging data and then calibrated and validated via FEA. Imaging data from patients without disc degeneration were used. The L4-L5 nucleus and disc cross-sectional areas and the distances between the edges of the annulus and nucleus were measured; the ratios between these values were calculated as P1 and P2, respectively. The FEA model was constructed using these measured values, and the relative nucleus position was calibrated by estimating the differences in the range of motion (ROM) between the model, wherein the ligaments, facet joints and nucleus were suppressed, and that of an in vitro study. Then, the ACC was re-estimated in the model with all non-bony structures by comparing the ROM, the intradiscal pressure (IDP), the facet contact force (FCF) and the disc compression (DC) under different sizes and directions of moments magnitudes to validate the measured and calibrated indicators.Results: The interobserver homogeneity was acceptable, and the measured P1 and P2 values were 1.22 and 38%, respectively. Furthermore, an ACC of up to 99% was attained for the model under flexion–extension conditions when the calibrated P1 value (1.62) was used, with a model validation of greater than 90% attained under almost all of the loading conditions considering the different indicators and moment magnitudes.Conclusions: The measured and calibrated relative nucleus position and its cross-sectional area ratio increase the ACC of the FEA model and can therefore be used in subsequent studies.

show abstract

Comparison Among Load-, ROM-, and Displacement-Controlled Methods Used in the Lumbosacral Nonlinear Finite-Element Analysis

Abstract: The superiority of the computational efficiency of the DCM compared with its counterparts makes it the improved strategy for executing lumbosacral nonlinear analysis.

Cited by 32 publications

References 24 publications

Which is the better posterior lumbar dynamic device: Dynesys or BioFlex?

Which is the better posterior lumbar dynamic device: Dynesys or BioFlex?

Removal of fixation construct could mitigate adjacent segment stress after lumbosacral fusion: A finite element analysis

Measurement and calibration of the nucleus position and its cross-sectional area ratio to increase the accuracy of finite element analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About