2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.12.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamics of spinal cord compression with different patterns of thoracolumbar burst fractures: Numerical simulations using finite element modelling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
12
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A study published in 2020 proposed a thorough FEM of the spine to better reproduce SCI resulting from vertebral fractures [31]. In particular, FEM was used to examine the strain tolerated by the spinal cord through various parameters, as well as to analyze the potential involvement of the posterior vertebral body wall.…”
Section: Fracturementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A study published in 2020 proposed a thorough FEM of the spine to better reproduce SCI resulting from vertebral fractures [31]. In particular, FEM was used to examine the strain tolerated by the spinal cord through various parameters, as well as to analyze the potential involvement of the posterior vertebral body wall.…”
Section: Fracturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The features of ley fracture patterns associated with SCI were recognized. These can be used for the better comprehension of injuries from the biomechanical loading of the spinal cord during trauma [31].…”
Section: Fracturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The FE model also includes a spinal cord model previously described by Fradet et al (2014), Taso et al (2015 and Diotalevi et al (2020). It is composed of white and grey matter, denticulate ligaments, pia mater and dura mater (Fig.…”
Section: Finite Element Modelling Of the Cervical Spinementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although some studies have proposed non-linear material models (Jannesar et al, 2020), the associated models typically involve very small mesh sizes (e.g., <0.5 mm) that are prohibitive for current state-of-the-art HBM (Schwartz et al, 2015;Kimpara et al, 2016;Östh et al, 2017). In contrast, models utilizing coarse meshes often incorporate simplified elastic material properties (Greaves et al, 2008) and have not been evaluated in terms of model biofidelity for impact scenarios (Kimpara et al, 2006;Henao et al, 2016, Henao et al, 2018Diotalevi et al, 2020). Importantly, the existing models also lack hierarchical assessment and robust validation that are needed prior to integration in HBM.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%