Artificial intervertebral disc replacement to provide dynamic stability to the lumbar spine: A finite element study

被引：8
作者：
Biswas J.Kr. [1 ]
Roy S. [2 ]
Majumder S. [1 ]
Karmakar S.Kr. [3 ]
Saha S. [4 ]
Roychowdhury A. [1 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Aerospace Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, Howrah
[2] Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai
[3] Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, Howrah
[4] Department of Biomedical Engineering, Florida International University, Miami, 33174, FL
来源：
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants | 2018年 / 28卷 / 02期
关键词：
Biomechanics; Finite element analysis; Intervertebral disc replacement; Lumbar spine;
D O I：
10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2018025397
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Currently, intervertebral disc prostheses that are designed to restore mobility to a vertebral segment are possible for the lumbar spine. The ball-and-socket joint is a constrained design, wherein the rotational axis of the intervertebral joint is forced to pass through the center of the spherical surfaces that form the joint. One advantage of ball-and-socket joints versus unconstrained designs includes better shear stability, which results in sufficient flexibility. In this study, finite element analyses were performed in preimplanted and implanted (intervertebral disc replacement [IDR]) lumbar spine (L1–S) models to examine range of motion (ROM) and the resulting mechanical responses in the implant and the adjacent bones. Four physiological loading conditions including flexion, extension, and left and right lateral bending were analyzed to observe the effect on ROM under a 10–Newton meter moment. In terms of mechanical response, this study shows that disc replacement is an viable alternative to fusion surgery. The added advantage of IDR over fusion for degenerative discs is the reduced chance of disc degeneration at the adjacent segment of spinal vertebral column; with fusion surgery, chances of degeneration are increased. © 2018 by Begell House, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码：101 / 109
页数：8
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Chen WJ, Lai PL, Niu CC, Chen LH, Fu TS, Wong CB., Surgical treatment of adjacent instability after lumbar spine fusion, Spine, 26, 22, pp. E519-E524, (2001)
  • [2] Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A., Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: A multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group, Spine, 26, 23, pp. 2521-2532, (2001)
  • [3] Mathews HH, LeHuec JC, Friesem T, Zdeblick T, Eisermann L., Design rationale and biomechanics of Maverick total disc arthroplasty with early clinical results, Spine J, 4, 6, pp. S268-S275, (2004)
  • [4] Zigler JE., Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II, Spine J, 4, 6, pp. S260-S267, (2004)
  • [5] Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel TC, Biyani A, Sairyo K, Vishnubhotla S, Matyas A, Cowgill I, Shaw M, Long R, Dick D., Effects of Charité artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol, Spine, 30, 24, pp. 2755-2764, (2005)
  • [6] Zippel H., Charité modular: Conception, experience and results, The artificial disc, pp. 69-78, (1991)
  • [7] Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R, Hu SS, Lotz JC., Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces, Spine J, 6, 3, pp. 258-266, (2006)
  • [8] Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE, Hu N, McAfee PC., Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: An in vitro human cadaveric model, Spine, 28, 20S, pp. S110-S117, (2003)
  • [9] Tournier C, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC, Lemaire JP, Tropiano P, Lafage V, Skalli W., Total disc arthroplasty: Consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement, Eur Spine J, 16, 3, pp. 411-421, (2007)
  • [10] Sebastian C, Abad I, Garcia Vacas F, Ezquerro F, Simon A, Universal intervertebral disc prosthesis, (2006)
1234