Finite element based nonlinear normalization of human lumbar intervertebral disc stiffness to account for its morphology.

Disc degeneration, usually associated with low back pain and changes of intervertebral stiffness, represents a major health issue. As the intervertebral disc (IVD) morphology influences its stiffness, the link between mechanical properties and degenerative grade is partially lost without an efficient normalization of the stiffness with respect to the morphology. Moreover, although the behavior of soft tissues is highly nonlinear, only linear normalization protocols have been defined so far for the disc stiffness. Thus, the aim of this work is to propose a nonlinear normalization based on finite elements (FE) simulations and evaluate its impact on the stiffness of human anatomical specimens of lumbar IVD. First, a parameter study involving simulations of biomechanical tests (compression, flexion/extension, bilateral torsion and bending) on 20 FE models of IVDs with various dimensions was carried out to evaluate the effect of the disc's geometry on its compliance and establish stiffness/morphology relations necessary to the nonlinear normalization. The computed stiffness was then normalized by height (H), cross-sectional area (CSA), polar moment of inertia (J) or moments of inertia (Ixx, Iyy) to quantify the effect of both linear and nonlinear normalizations. In the second part of the study, T1-weighted MRI images were acquired to determine H, CSA, J, Ixx and Iyy of 14 human lumbar IVDs. Based on the measured morphology and pre-established relation with stiffness, linear and nonlinear normalization routines were then applied to the compliance of the specimens for each quasi-static biomechanical test. The variability of the stiffness prior to and after normalization was assessed via coefficient of variation (CV). The FE study confirmed that larger and thinner IVDs were stiffer while the normalization strongly attenuated the effect of the disc geometry on its stiffness. Yet, notwithstanding the results of the FE study, the experimental stiffness showed consistently higher CV after normalization. Assuming that geometry and material properties affect the mechanical response, they can also compensate for one another. Therefore, the larger CV after normalization can be interpreted as a strong variability of the material properties, previously hidden by the geometry's own influence. In conclusion, a new normalization protocol for the intervertebral disc stiffness in compression, flexion, extension, bilateral torsion and bending was proposed, with the possible use of MRI and FE to acquire the discs' anatomy and determine the nonlinear relations between stiffness and morphology. Such protocol may be useful to relate the disc's mechanical properties to its degree of degeneration.

[1]  D. Haschtmann,et al.  Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[2]  Y. K. Liu,et al.  Mechanical response of the lumbar intervertebral joint under physiological (complex) loading. , 1978, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[3]  B. Peng,et al.  The pathogenesis and clinical significance of a high-intensity zone (HIZ) of lumbar intervertebral disc on MR imaging in the patient with discogenic low back pain , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[4]  P. Knupp Achieving finite element mesh quality via optimization of the jacobian matrix norm and associated qu , 2000 .

[5]  M. Doblaré,et al.  An accurate validation of a computational model of a human lumbosacral segment. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  D. Elliott,et al.  Young Investigator Award Winner: Validation of the Mouse and Rat Disc as Mechanical Models of the Human Lumbar Disc , 2004, Spine.

[7]  Mark D. Brown,et al.  Measurement of Cadaver Lumbar Spine Motion Segment Stiffness , 2002, Spine.

[8]  T. Brown,et al.  Some mechanical tests on the lumbosacral spine with particular reference to the intervertebral discs; a preliminary report. , 1957, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  P. Zysset,et al.  Human intervertebral disc stiffness correlates better with the Otsu threshold computed from axial T2 map of its posterior annulus fibrosus than with clinical classifications. , 2014, Medical engineering & physics.

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

[11]  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.

[12]  M. Doblaré,et al.  An accurate finite element model of the cervical spine under quasi-static loading. , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  A. Race,et al.  Effect of loading rate and hydration on the mechanical properties of the disc. , 2000, Spine.

[14]  J. Lotz,et al.  Effect of Frozen Storage on the Creep Behavior of Human Intervertebral Discs , 2001, Spine.

[15]  F. Hartmann,et al.  Biomechanical Properties of Human Intervertebral Discs Subjected to Axial Dynamic Compression: A Comparison of Lumbar and Thoracic Discs , 1984, Spine.

[16]  A. Nordez,et al.  Is tendon stiffness correlated to the dissipation coefficient? , 2012, Physiological measurement.

[17]  Per Kjaer,et al.  A method for quantitative measurement of lumbar intervertebral disc structures: an intra- and inter-rater agreement and reliability study , 2013, Chiropractic & Manual Therapies.

[18]  A Shirazi-Adl,et al.  Analysis of cell viability in intervertebral disc: Effect of endplate permeability on cell population. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  F. Hartmann,et al.  Biomechanical properties of human intervertebral discs subjected to axial dynamic compression--influence of age and degeneration. , 1986, Journal of biomechanics.

[20]  I. Stokes,et al.  Physiological axial compressive preloads increase motion segment stiffness, linearity and hysteresis in all six degrees of freedom for small displacements about the neutral posture , 2003, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

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

[22]  J. Tan,et al.  Cumulative Multiple Freeze-Thaw Cycles and Testing Does Not Affect Subsequent Within-Day Variation in Intervertebral Flexibility of Human Cadaveric Lumbosacral Spine , 2012, Spine.

[23]  I. Kingma,et al.  Effects of repetitive movement on range of motion and stiffness around the neutral orientation of the human lumbar spine. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  K. Markolf,et al.  The structural components of the intervertebral disc. A study of their contributions to the ability of the disc to withstand compressive forces. , 1974, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[25]  D. Felsenberg,et al.  Evaluation of lumbar disc and spine morphology: long-term repeatability and comparison of methods , 2012, Physiological measurement.

[26]  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.

[27]  V. Haughton,et al.  The Stiffness of Lumbar Spinal Motion Segments With a High‐Intensity Zone in the Anulus Fibrosus , 1998, Spine.

[28]  P. Zysset,et al.  Embedding of human vertebral bodies leads to higher ultimate load and altered damage localisation under axial compression , 2014, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[29]  Jutta Ellermann,et al.  Disc Degeneration Assessed by Quantitative T2* (T2 Star) Correlated With Functional Lumbar Mechanics , 2013, Spine.

[30]  V C Mow,et al.  Degeneration affects the anisotropic and nonlinear behaviors of human anulus fibrosus in compression. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  Dawn M. Elliott,et al.  Comparison of Animals Used in Disc Research to Human Lumbar Disc Geometry , 2007, Spine.

[32]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Spinal Fixation Devices: I. A Conceptual Framework , 1988, Spine.

[33]  V. Haughton,et al.  Intervertebral disk appearance correlated with stiffness of lumbar spinal motion segments. , 1999, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[34]  P. Knupp Algebraic mesh quality metrics for unstructured initial meshes , 2003 .

[35]  M. Krismer,et al.  Motion in Lumbar Functional Spine Units During Side Bending and Axial Rotation Moments Depending on the Degree of Degeneration , 2000, Spine.

[36]  L. Claes,et al.  Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: Effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular‐deformation rate, and moisture condition , 1998, The Anatomical record.

[37]  Narayan Yoganandan,et al.  Moment-rotation responses of the human lumbosacral spinal column. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[38]  Thomas R Oxland,et al.  Degenerative mechanics of the lumbar spine. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[39]  Zhi-Qiang Feng,et al.  Modélisation de tissus biologiques en hyperélasticité anisotrope ― Étude théorique et approche éléments finis , 2009 .

[40]  K. Ohmori,et al.  Radiographic evaluation of the lumbosacral disc height , 1999, Skeletal Radiology.

[41]  M. Fröhlich,et al.  Multi-segment FEA of the human lumbar spine including the heterogeneity of the annulus fibrosus , 2004 .

[42]  V C Mow,et al.  Shear mechanical properties of human lumbar annulus fibrosus , 1999, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[43]  J. Antoniou,et al.  Analysis of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and biomechanical parameters on human discs with different grades of degeneration , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[44]  G B Andersson,et al.  The Effect of Disc Degeneration and Facet Joint Osteoarthritis on the Segmental Flexibility of the Lumbar Spine , 2000, Spine.

[45]  V M Haughton,et al.  The relationship between disc degeneration and flexibility of the lumbar spine. , 2001, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[46]  Stephen J Ferguson,et al.  Minimizing errors during in vitro testing of multisegmental spine specimens: considerations for component selection and kinematic measurement. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[47]  B. Peng,et al.  [The pathogenesis of discogenic low back pain]. , 2004, Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery].

[48]  Dawn M Elliott,et al.  Comparison of Animal Discs Used in Disc Research to Human Lumbar Disc: Axial Compression Mechanics and Glycosaminoglycan Content , 2008, Spine.

[49]  Guido Gerig,et al.  User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability , 2006, NeuroImage.

[50]  F. Kainberger,et al.  QCT-based finite element models predict human vertebral strength in vitro significantly better than simulated DEXA , 2012, Osteoporosis International.

[51]  R. Ogden,et al.  A New Constitutive Framework for Arterial Wall Mechanics and a Comparative Study of Material Models , 2000 .

[52]  Alison C Jones,et al.  Finite element analysis of the spine: towards a framework of verification, validation and sensitivity analysis. , 2008, Medical engineering & physics.

[53]  A. Schultz,et al.  Mechanical Properties of Human Lumbar Spine Motion Segments: Influences of Age, Sex, Disc Level, and Degeneration , 1979, Spine.

[54]  C. Wise Back Pain and Common Musculoskeletal Problems , 2018, DeckerMed Transitional Year Weekly Curriculum™.

[55]  L. Howell,et al.  Intervertebral disc degeneration alters lumbar spine segmental stiffness in all modes of loading under a compressive follower load. , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[56]  I. Stokes,et al.  Spinal stiffness increases with axial load: another stabilizing consequence of muscle action. , 2003, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[57]  J. V. van Dieën,et al.  Validation of vibration testing for the assessment of the mechanical properties of human lumbar motion segments. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[58]  Amonoo-Kuofi Hs,et al.  Morphometric changes in the heights and anteroposterior diameters of the lumbar intervertebral discs with age. , 1991 .

[59]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[60]  Etsuo Chosa,et al.  Mechanical analysis of the lumbar vertebrae in a three-dimensional finite element method model in which intradiscal pressure in the nucleus pulposus was used to establish the model , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[61]  V. Parthasarathy,et al.  A comparison of tetrahedron quality measures , 1994 .

[62]  J. Cramer,et al.  The relationship between passive stiffness and evoked twitch properties: the influence of muscle CSA normalization , 2011, Physiological measurement.

[63]  Jacques M. Huyghe,et al.  Osmoviscoelastic finite element model of the intervertebral disc , 2006, European Spine Journal.