Derivation of Clinically Relevant Boundary Conditions Suitable for Evaluation of Chronic Impingement of Lumbar Total Disk Replacement: Application to Standard Development

Currently available standardized methods for evaluating the long-term wear of total disk replacements do not incorporate the effects of potential device impingement. Creation of a standard that incorporates device impingement is difficult without a thorough understanding of the associated biomechanical environment. Arbitrary modification of the currently available wear-test protocols to account for device impingement may add unnecessary cost, and potentially inaccurate, unrealistic results. Finite element models provide the ability to control variation and test for a wide range of parameters without the excessive time and monetary costs associated with cadaveric testing or wear simulations. However, careful validation and verification of these models is required in order to ensure predictability. Retrieved implants can be used to validate the clinical predictability of finite element models (FEMs). The objective of the current study was to quantify the ability of a previously developed FEM of the lumbar spine to predict polyethylene damage modes and impingement in actual clinical scenarios, and extract the loading and boundary conditions for implementation into a new lumbar TDR wear simulation standard. In order to achieve this objective, actual clinical scenarios, associated with retrieved implants, were modeled and simulated. We hypothesized that clinical damage modes, including both impingement and non-impingement scenarios, can be predicted using a FEM that incorporates case-specific clinical factors, anterior-posterior shear forces, coupled translations, and facet contact.

[1]  T. Brown,et al.  Preferential superior surface motion in wear simulations of the Charité total disc replacement , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[2]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Wear pattern observations from TDR retrievals using autoregistration of voxel data. , 2010, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[3]  T. Brown,et al.  The effect of anterior–posterior shear load on the wear of ProDisc-L TDR , 2010, European Spine Journal.

[4]  David Markel,et al.  Biomechanical modeling of acetabular component polyethylene stresses, fracture risk, and wear rate following press‐fit implantation , 2009, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[5]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Effect of Nucleus Replacement Device Properties on Lumbar Spine Mechanics , 2009, Spine.

[6]  A Rohlmann,et al.  Applying a follower load delivers realistic results for simulating standing. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Retrieval Analysis of a ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement , 2009, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[8]  Guoan Li,et al.  Segmental in vivo vertebral motion during functional human lumbar spine activities , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[9]  Thomas D. Brown,et al.  (ii) Impingement in total hip replacement: mechanisms and consequences , 2008 .

[10]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Total Disc Replacement Positioning Affects Facet Contact Forces and Vertebral Body Strains , 2008, Spine.

[11]  H. Reichel,et al.  Posterior Component Impingement After Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: A Radiographic Analysis of 66 ProDisc-L Prostheses in 56 Patients , 2008, Spine.

[12]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  What Is the Correlation of In Vivo Wear and Damage Patterns With In Vitro TDR Motion Response? , 2008, Spine.

[13]  L. Claes,et al.  The relation between the instantaneous center of rotation and facet joint forces - A finite element analysis. , 2008, Clinical biomechanics.

[14]  Steven M. Kurtz,et al.  Complications and reoperations of the SB Charité lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[15]  F. Geisler,et al.  Comparison of Biomechanical Function at Ideal and Varied Surgical Placement for Two Lumbar Artificial Disc Implant Designs: Mobile-Core Versus Fixed-Core , 2007, Spine.

[16]  Chun-Kun Park,et al.  Factors influencing segmental range of motion after lumbar total disc replacement using the ProDisc II prosthesis. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  Aditya Maheshwari,et al.  Impingement with total hip replacement. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  L. Joskowicz,et al.  A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. , 2007, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[19]  M. Panjabi,et al.  Multidirectional Testing of One- and Two-Level ProDisc-L Versus Simulated Fusions , 2007, Spine.

[20]  Lutz Claes,et al.  Application of a calibration method provides more realistic results for a finite element model of a lumbar spinal segment. , 2007, Clinical biomechanics.

[21]  R. Balderston,et al.  Evaluation of Spinal Kinematics Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement and Circumferential Fusion Using In Vivo Fluoroscopy , 2007 .

[22]  Idsart Kingma,et al.  Trunk muscle activation and associated lumbar spine joint shear forces under different levels of external forward force applied to the trunk. , 2007, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[23]  L. Claes,et al.  Cervical spine disc prosthesis: radiographic, biomechanical and morphological post mortal findings 12 weeks after implantation. A retrieval example , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[24]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Polyethylene Wear Debris and Long-term Clinical Failure of the Charité Disc Prosthesis: A Study of 4 Patients , 2007, Spine.

[25]  A. Korge,et al.  Total lumbar disc replacement in athletes: clinical results, return to sport and athletic performance , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[26]  L. Pimenta,et al.  Charité lumbar artificial disc retrieval: use of a lateral minimally invasive technique. Technical note. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[27]  Timothy M Wright,et al.  Retrieval, experimental, and computational assessment of the performance of total knee replacements , 2006, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[28]  F. Geisler,et al.  Revisability of the CHARITÉ Artificial Disc Replacement: Analysis of 688 Patients Enrolled in the U.S. IDE Study of the CHARITÉ Artificial Disc , 2006, Spine.

[29]  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.

[30]  Marc-Antoine Rousseau,et al.  Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[31]  Avinash G Patwardhan,et al.  Response of Charité total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns. , 2005, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[32]  Josep A Planell,et al.  Finite Element Study of a Novel Intervertebral Disc Substitute , 2005, Spine.

[33]  Timothy M Wright,et al.  Impingement of acetabular cups in a hip simulator: comparison of highly cross-linked and conventional polyethylene. , 2005, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[34]  J. Le Huec,et al.  Influence of Facet and Posterior Muscle Degeneration on Clinical Results of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Two-Year Follow-Up , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[35]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Analysis of a retrieved polyethylene total disc replacement component. , 2005, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[36]  R. Schmidt,et al.  The impact of total lumbar disc replacement on segmental and total lumbar lordosis. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[37]  H. Tsumura,et al.  Three‐dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty–the influence of tibial component inclination , 2005, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[38]  R. Fraser,et al.  AcroFlex design and results. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[39]  P. McAfee,et al.  Biomaterial Optimization in Total Disc Arthroplasty , 2003, Spine.

[40]  Bryan W Cunningham,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Total Disc Replacement Arthroplasty: An In Vitro Human Cadaveric Model , 2003, Spine.

[41]  F. Oner,et al.  Complications of Artificial Disc Replacement: A Report of 27 Patients with the SB Charité Disc , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[42]  T. Wright,et al.  The Implications of Constraint in Lumbar Total Disc Replacement , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[43]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[44]  L. Nolte,et al.  The Effect of Cement Augmentation on the Load Transfer in an Osteoporotic Functional Spinal Unit: Finite-Element Analysis , 2003, Spine.

[45]  A. Korge,et al.  Non-fusion technology in degenerative lumbar spinal disorders: facts, questions, challenges , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[46]  N Yoganandan,et al.  Contribution of disc degeneration to osteophyte formation in the cervical spine: a biomechanical investigation , 2001, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[47]  V. Goel,et al.  Load-Sharing Between Anterior and Posterior Elements in a Lumbar Motion Segment Implanted With an Artificial Disc , 2001, Spine.

[48]  P. Rüegsegger,et al.  The ability of three-dimensional structural indices to reflect mechanical aspects of trabecular bone. , 1999, Bone.

[49]  L. Claes,et al.  New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. , 1999, Spine.

[50]  A. Patla,et al.  Low back three-dimensional joint forces, kinematics, and kinetics during walking. , 1999, Clinical biomechanics.

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

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

[53]  J R Potvin,et al.  Reduction in anterior shear forces on the L 4L 5 disc by the lumbar musculature. , 1991, Clinical biomechanics.

[54]  M. Panjabi,et al.  A Study of the Compressive Properties of Lumbar Vertebral Trabeculae: Effects of Tissue Characteristics , 1987, Spine.

[55]  T. Brown,et al.  What design factors influence wear behavior at the bearing surfaces in total joint replacements? , 2008, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[56]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Polyethylene wear and rim fracture in total disc arthroplasty. , 2007, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[57]  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.

[58]  D. Ku,et al.  Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

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

[60]  A. Schultz,et al.  Analysis and measurement of lumbar trunk loads in tasks involving bends and twists. , 1982, Journal of biomechanics.

[61]  U. Fernström Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. , 1966, Acta chirurgica Scandinavica. Supplementum.