Phantom -based lumbar spine experimental investigation and validation of a multibody model

Abstract

The study of the biomechanics of the human spine is not yet developed extensively. Recent developments in this field have heightened the need for observing the spine from a comprehensive perspective to understand the complex biomechanical patterns, which underlie the kinematic and dynamic responses of this multiple-joint column. Within this frame of exigence, a joint study embracing experimental tests and multibody modelling was designed. This study provides novel insights to the segmental contribution profiles in flexion and extension, analysing different forms of sagittal-plane angles. Moreover, the validation of the multibody model contributes to defining the key aspects for a consistent spine modelling as well as it introduces the basis for simulating pathological conditions and post-orthopaedic surgical outcomes.

Cross-link augmentation enhances CFR-PEEK short fixation in lumbar metastasis stabilization

“…The biomechanical loads applied to the biomimetic phantom included flexion, extension, and lateral bending as well as clockwise and anticlockwise axial rotation. Tests were performed recurring to a spine-loading apparatus already described in a previous study (Borrelli et al, 2021) and shown in Figure 1. Briefly, this spineloading apparatus orients the phantom to make the L3 inferior endplate horizontal, consistent with the anatomical orientation of lumbar segment (Wilke et al, 1998), and it allows bending through an eccentric vertical load applied to the cranial vertebra Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology frontiersin.org with S1 fixed to the machine (Patwardhan et al, 1999;Cripton et al, 2000;Marras et al, 2021;Ou et al, 2021;Garavelli et al, 2022).…”

In Silico Meta-Analysis of Boundary Conditions for Experimental Tests on the Lumbar Spine

“…The direction of this load can be either always vertical (M + LL1), or can maintain the same relative orientation with the most cranial vertebra during the motion (M + LL2), or can be defined so that the force acts along the line connecting the cranial vertebra’s center to the caudal vertebra’s center (M + LL3). Configurations M + LL1 and M + LL2 are actually equivalent to vertical eccentric forces generating both a bending moment and a compression force 6 , 19 . Rarely bending moments were obtained by applying a shear force along the construct’s antero-posterior direction 9 .…”

“… Study Spinal levels (No. of samples) Cranial vertebrae DOF Load Preload Classification Belwadi et al (2008) [ 3 ] T12–L2 (10), L4–S1 (9) Sagittal motion Force up to spinal failure – HLsf, M Bennett et al (2013) [ 4 ] L4–L5 (6) Free 8 Nm FL 400 N M, M + LL2 Bennett et al (2015) [ 5 ] L4–-L5 (6) Free 8 Nm FL 400 N M, M + LL1, M + LL2 Borrelli et al (2021) [ 6 ] T12–S1 (1)—synthethic Free 3 Nm (F); 2 Nm (E) LL 1 N M + LL1 Charriere et al (2006) [ 7 ] L5–S1 (7) Free/Sagittal motion 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10 Nm – M Cripton et al (2000) [ 8 ] L1–L2 (1), L2–L3 (3), L3–L4 (1), L4–L5 (1) Free/Sagittal motion 5 Nm LL 200, 400 N M, M + LL1, M + LL2 Demetropoulos et al (1998) [ 9 ] T12–L5 (10) Free Cranial vertebra motion – HLsf Di Angelo et al ...…”

Digital Image Correlation analysis on the bone displacement during split crest: an ex vivo study

“…It is particularly suitable for biomechanical applications compared to other strain measurement techniques such as strain gauges, which are invasive and only provide a local measurement, or thermoelastic analyses, which in some conditions are not applicable to biological tissues [33,34]. Furthermore, optical measurements can be successfully coupled with finite element method and multibody modeling in order to achieve a complete mechanical characterization [35][36][37][38][39].…”