Finite element investigation of the influence of a new transpedicular vertebral implant positioning on biomechanical responses of the spine segment

Effect of cement volume on biomechanical response of a spine segment treated with a PEEK polymer implant: a finite element comparative study with vertebroplasty

“…In a previous work ( Hambli et al, 2024 ), we demonstrated that the optimal position of the V-STRUT implants within the treated vertebra allowing a uniform stress distribution in the augmented spine segment and the treated vertebral body correspond to distance from anterior wall ( d = 5 mm), and height from superior endplate ( h = 15 mm) ( Figure 2 ). In the current work, three finite element models were developed to investigate the biomechanical response of an osteoporotic spine segment treated with the V-STRUT and VP techniques combined with the bilateral injection of a total five volumes of cement (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cc) for each model and a non-treated osteoporotic model (reference model).…”

“…In a previous work (Hambli et al, 2024), we demonstrated that the optimal position of the V-STRUT implants within the treated vertebra allowing a uniform stress distribution in the augmented spine segment and the treated vertebral body correspond to distance from anterior wall (d = 5 mm), and height from superior endplate (h = 15 mm) (Figure 2). In the current work, three finite element The FE model (Model Ref), without implant and without cement was retained as the benchmark model to show the differences after the V-STRUT and VP treatments.…”

“…Frictional contact with relative sliding motion between two contacting surfaces with a friction coefficient of 0.01 was defined between each vertebra/disc surface ( Wan et al, 2022 ). The facet joints were modelled as a frictionless contact with an initial gap of 0.5 mm ( Hambli et al, 2024 ).…”