Biomechanics of vertebral level, geometry, and transcortical tumors in the metastatic spine.

Metastatic involvement can disrupt the mechanical integrity of the spine, rendering vertebrae susceptible to burst fracture and neurologic damage. Fracture risk assessment for patients with spinal metastases is important in considering prophylactic treatment options. Stability of thoracic vertebrae affected by metastatic disease has been shown to be dependent on tumor size and bone density, but additional structural and geometric factors may also play a role in fracture risk assessment. The objective of this study was to use parametric finite element modeling to determine the effects of vertebral level, geometry, and metastatic compromise to the cortical shell on the risk of burst fracture in the thoracic spine. Analysis of vertebral level and geometry was assessed by investigation of seven scenarios ranging in geometry from T2-T4 to T10-T12. The effects of cortical shell compromised were assessed by comparison of four transcortical scenarios to a fully contained central vertebral body tumor scenario. Results demonstrated that upper thoracic vertebrae are at greater risk of burst fracture and that kyphotic motion segments are at decreased risk of burst fracture. Vertebrae with transcortical lesions are up to 30% less likely to lead to burst fracture initiation. The findings of this study are important for improving the understanding of burst fracture mechanics in metastatically involved vertebrae and guiding future modeling efforts.

[1]  K. Kaneda,et al.  Risk factors and probability of vertebral body collapse in metastases of the thoracic and lumbar spine. , 1997, Spine.

[2]  J. Moran,et al.  A Morphometric Study of Human Lumbar and Selected Thoracic Vertebrae , 1987, Spine.

[3]  C. Whyne,et al.  Effects of tumor location, shape and surface serration on burst fracture risk in the metastatic spine. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  W. Hayes,et al.  Strength reductions of thoracic vertebrae in the presence of transcortical osseous defects: effects of defect location, pedicle disruption, and defect size , 1993, European Spine Journal.

[5]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Yield strain behavior of trabecular bone. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  T. M. Keaveny,et al.  Dependence of Intertrabecular Permeability on Flow Direction and Anatomic Site , 1999, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  Manohar M. Panjabi,et al.  Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine , 1978 .

[8]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Poroelastic creep response analysis of a lumbar motion segment in compression. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  A. Schultz,et al.  Loads on the lumbar spine. Validation of a biomechanical analysis by measurements of intradiscal pressures and myoelectric signals. , 1982, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

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

[11]  DAVID A. WONG,et al.  Spinal Metastases: The Obvious, the Occult, and the Impostors , 1990, Spine.

[12]  C. Whyne,et al.  Biomechanically Derived Guideline Equations for Burst Fracture Risk Prediction in the Metastatically Involved Spine , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[13]  L. Mosekilde,et al.  Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabecular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals. , 1987, Bone.

[14]  C. Whyne,et al.  Parametric finite element analysis of vertebral bodies affected by tumors. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  C. Whyne,et al.  Biphasic Material Properties of Lytic Bone Metastases , 2000, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  D. C. Barton,et al.  A dynamic investigation of the burst fracture process using a combined experimental and finite element approach , 2004, European Spine Journal.

[17]  C. Whyne,et al.  Metastatic Burst Fracture Risk Prediction Using Biomechanically Based Equations , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  B. Snyder,et al.  Noninvasive Imaging Predicts Failure Load of the Spine with Simulated Osteolytic Defects*† , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

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

[20]  J. Pooni,et al.  Comparison of the structure of human intervertebral discs in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions of the spine , 2006, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy.

[21]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Thoracic Human Vertebrae Quantitative Three‐Dimensional Anatomy , 1991, Spine.

[22]  T David,et al.  Rheology of Bovine Bone Marrow , 1989, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[23]  T D Brown,et al.  The apparent elastic modulus of the juxtaricular subchondral bone of the femoral head , 1984, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[24]  Cari M Whyne,et al.  Burst Fracture in the Metastatically Involved Spine: Development, Validation, and Parametric Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Poroelastic Finite-Element Model , 2003, Spine.

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

[26]  W C Hayes,et al.  Load Sharing Between the Shell and Centrum in the Lumbar Vertebral Body , 1997, Spine.

[27]  W. Hayes,et al.  Fracture prediction for the proximal femur using finite element models: Part I--Linear analysis. , 1991, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[28]  Y Kim,et al.  Prediction of Mechanical Behaviors at Interfaces Between Bone and Two Interbody Cages of Lumbar Spine Segments , 2001, Spine.