Application of a calibration method provides more realistic results for a finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment.

BACKGROUND An important step in finite element modeling is the process of validation to derive clinical relevant data. It can be assumed that defect states of a finite element model, which have not been validated before, may predict wrong results. The purpose of this study was to show the differences in accuracy between a calibrated and a non-calibrated finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment for different clinical defects. METHODS For this study, two geometrically identical finite element models were used. An in vitro experiment was designed, deriving data for the calibration. Frequently used material properties were obtained from the literature and transferred into the non-calibrated model. Both models were validated on three clinical defects: bilateral hemifacetectomy, nucleotomy and interspinous defects, whereas in vitro range of motion data served as control points. Predictability and accuracy of the calibrated and non-calibrated finite element model were evaluated and compared. FINDINGS Both finite element models could mimic the intact situation with a good agreement. In the defects, the calibrated model predicted motion behavior with excellent agreement, whereas the non-calibrated model diverged greatly. INTERPRETATION Investigating the biomechanical performance of implants and load distribution of different spinal structures by numerical analysis requires not only good agreement with the intact segment, but also with the defect states, which are initiated prior to implant insertion. Because of more realistic results the calibration method may be recommended, however, it is more time consuming.

[1]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[2]  L. Claes,et al.  Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[3]  Lutz Claes,et al.  Stepwise reduction of functional spinal structures increase range of motion and change lordosis angle. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  P. Brinckmann,et al.  Interlaminar Shear Stresses and Laminae Separation in a Disc: Finite Element Analysis of the L3‐L4 Motion Segment Subjected to Axial Compressive Loads , 1995, Spine.

[5]  M. Panjabi,et al.  Articular Facets of the Human Spine Quantitative Three‐Dimensional Anatomy , 1993, Spine.

[6]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Mechanical Response of a Lumbar Motion Segment in Axial Torque Alone and Combined with Compression , 1986, Spine.

[7]  Z. Shao,et al.  Radiographic Changes in the Lumbar Intervertebral Discs and Lumbar Vertebrae With Age , 2002, Spine.

[8]  W. Edwards,et al.  Structural features and thickness of the vertebral cortex in the thoracolumbar spine. , 2001, Spine.

[9]  Stephen J. Ferguson,et al.  The importance of the endplate for interbody cages in the lumbar spine , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[10]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Analysis of the influence of disc degeneration on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar motion segment using the finite element method. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  Hutton Wc,et al.  Can variations in intervertebral disc height affect the mechanical function of the disc , 1996 .

[12]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Load-bearing role of facets in a lumbar segment under sagittal plane loadings. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  A finite element study of a lumbar motion segment subjected to pure sagittal plane moments. , 1986, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  Gerhard A. Holzapfel,et al.  An Anisotropic Model for Annulus Tissue and Enhanced Finite Element Analyses of Intact Lumbar Disc Bodies , 2001 .

[15]  A. Rohlmann,et al.  Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[16]  Hutton Wc,et al.  Do bending, twisting, and diurnal fluid changes in the disc affect the propensity to prolapse? A viscoelastic finite element model , 1996 .

[17]  Ming Zhang,et al.  Biomechanical responses of the intervertebral joints to static and vibrational loading: a finite element study. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[18]  F Lavaste,et al.  Three-dimensional geometrical and mechanical modelling of the lumbar spine. , 1992, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  D W Hukins,et al.  Replacing the nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disc. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[20]  M. Viceconti,et al.  Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element simulations. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[21]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[22]  L. Claes,et al.  Effect of a prosthetic disc nucleus on the mobility and disc height of the L4-5 intervertebral disc postnucleotomy. , 2001, Journal of neurosurgery.

[23]  A M Mohsen,et al.  Patient-specific spine models. Part 1: Finite element analysis of the lumbar intervertebral disc—a material sensitivity study , 2002, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[24]  G B Andersson,et al.  The influence of lumbar disc height and cross-sectional area on the mechanical response of the disc to physiologic loading. , 1999, Spine.

[25]  R. Vanderby,et al.  Finite Element Analysis of Interbody Cages in a Human Lumbar Spine , 2000, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[26]  N. Langrana,et al.  Role of Ligaments and Facets in Lumbar Spinal Stability , 1995, Spine.

[27]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Disc Degeneration Affects the Multidirectional Flexibility of the Lumbar Spine , 1994, Spine.

[28]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Biomechanics of the Lumbar Spine in Sagittal/Lateral Moments , 1994, Spine.

[29]  B R Simon,et al.  1985 Volvo Award in Biomechanics: Poroelastic Dynamic Structural Models of Rhesus Spinal Motion Segments , 1985, Spine.

[30]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Influence of ligament stiffness on the mechanical behavior of a functional spinal unit. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  Lutz Claes,et al.  Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. , 2006, Clinical biomechanics.

[32]  L. Claes,et al.  Laminectomy and functional impairment of the lumbar spine: the importance of muscle forces in flexible and rigid instrumented stabilization – a biomechanical study in vitro , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[33]  A. Hiltner,et al.  Hierarchical structure of the intervertebral disc. , 1989, Connective tissue research.

[34]  S. Peleg,et al.  Facet Orientation in the Thoracolumbar Spine: Three-dimensional Anatomic and Biomechanical Analysis , 2004, Spine.

[35]  Christoph Weiler,et al.  Classification of Age-Related Changes in Lumbar Intervertebral Discs: 2002 Volvo Award in Basic Science , 2002, Spine.

[36]  L. Claes,et al.  A universal spine tester for in vitro experiments with muscle force simulation , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[37]  N Yoganandan,et al.  Finite element model of the human lower cervical spine: parametric analysis of the C4-C6 unit. , 1997, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[38]  G A Dumas,et al.  Influence of material properties on the mechanical behaviour of the L5-S1 intervertebral disc in compression: a nonlinear finite element study. , 1991, Journal of biomedical engineering.

[39]  Carsten Perka,et al.  The Surgical Treatment of the Lumbar Disc Prolapse: Nucleotomy With Additional Transpedicular Dynamic Stabilization Versus Nucleotomy Alone , 2005, Spine.