Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adjacent segments biomechanics following lumbar fusion surgery: a musculoskeletal finite element model study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study exploits a novel musculoskeletal finite element (MS-FE) spine model to evaluate the post-fusion (L4–L5) alterations in adjacent segment kinetics.

Methods

Unlike the existing MS models with idealized representation of spinal joints, this model predicts stress/strain distributions in all passive tissues while organically coupled to a MS model. This generic (in terms of musculature and material properties) model uses population-based in vivo vertebral sagittal rotations, gravity loads, and an optimization algorithm to calculate muscle forces. Simulations represent individuals with an intact L4–L5, a preoperative severely degenerated L4–L5 (by reducing the disc height by ~ 60% and removing the nucleus incompressibility), and a postoperative fused L4–L5 segment with either a fixed or an altered lumbopelvic rhythm with respect to the intact condition (based on clinical observations). Changes in spine kinematics and back muscle cross-sectional areas (due to intraoperative injuries) are considered based on in vivo data while simulating three activities in upright/flexed postures.

Results

Postoperative changes in some adjacent segment kinetics were found considerable (i.e., larger than 25%) that depended on the postoperative lumbopelvic kinematics and preoperative L4–L5 disc condition. Postoperative alterations in adjacent disc shear, facet/ligament forces, and annulus stresses/strains were greater (> 25%) than those found in intradiscal pressure and compression (< 25%). Kinetics of the lower (L5–S1) and upper (L3–L4) adjacent segments were altered to different degrees.

Conclusion

Alterations in segmental rotations mainly affected adjacent disc shear forces, facet/ligament forces, and annulus/collagen fibers stresses/strains. An altered lumbopelvic rhythm (increased pelvis rotation) tends to mitigate some of these surgically induced changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS (2013) Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 13:342–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vergroesen PPA, Kingma I, Emanuel KS, Hoogendoorn RJW, Welting TJ, van Royen BJ, van Dieën JH, Smit TH (2015) Mechanics and biology in intervertebral disc degeneration: a vicious circle. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 23:1057–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2015.03.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar M, Baklanov A, Chopin D (2001) Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 10:314–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860000239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Malakoutian M, Volkheimer D, Street J, Dvorak MF, Wilke H-J, Oxland TR (2015) Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration? A qualitative systematic literature review. Eur Spine J 24:1865–1881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3992-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghiasi MS, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A, Farahmand F, Hashemi H, Bagheri S, Valizadeh M (2016) Cross-sectional area of human trunk paraspinal muscles before and after posterior lumbar surgery using magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Spine J 25:774–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4014-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Panjabi M, Malcolmson G, Teng E, Tominaga Y, Henderson G, Serhan H (2007) Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITÉ discs versus fusions. Spine 32:959–966. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000260792.13893.88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cegoñino J, Calvo-Echenique A, Pérez-del Palomar A (2015) Influence of different fusion techniques in lumbar spine over the adjacent segments: A 3D finite element study. J Orthop Res 33:993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang Y-P, Du C-F, Cheng C-K, Zhong Z-C, Chen X-W, Wu G, Li Z-C, Ye J-D, Lin J-H, Wang LZ (2016) Preserving posterior complex can prevent adjacent segment disease following posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgeries: a finite element analysis. PLoS ONE 11:e0166452. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Srinivas GR, Kumar MN, Deb A (2017) Adjacent disc stress following floating lumbar spine fusion: a finite element study. Asian Spine J 11:538–547. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.4.538

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Khoddam-Khorasani P, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A (2018) Trunk hybrid passive-active musculoskeletal modeling to determine the detailed T12–S1 response under in vivo loads. Ann Biomed Eng 46:1830–1843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-018-2078-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke H-J (2015) Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. Eur Spine J 24:1882–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4040-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ebrahimkhani M, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A (2021) Biomechanical effects of lumbar fusion surgery on adjacent segments using musculoskeletal models of the intact, degenerated and fused spine. Sci Rep 11:17892. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97288-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ignasiak D, Peteler T, Fekete TF, Haschtmann D, Ferguson SJ (2018) The influence of spinal fusion length on proximal junction biomechanics: a parametric computational study. Eur Spine J 27:2262–2271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5700-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Malakoutian M, Street J, Wilke H-J, Stavness I, Dvorak M, Fels S, Oxland T (2016) Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J 25:2929–2937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4686-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Senteler M, Weisse B, Rothenfluh DA, Farshad MT, Snedeker JG (2017) Fusion angle affects intervertebral adjacent spinal segment joint forces—Model-based analysis of patient specific alignment. J Orthop Res 35:131–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tafazzol A, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A, Parnianpour M (2014) Lumbopelvic rhythm during forward and backward sagittal trunk rotations: Combined in vivo measurement with inertial tracking device and biomechanical modeling. Clin Biomech 29:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.10.021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Honegger JD, Actis JA, Gates DH, Silverman AK, Munson AH, Petrella AJ (2021) Development of a multiscale model of the human lumbar spine for investigation of tissue loads in people with and without a transtibial amputation during sit-to-stand. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 20:339–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-020-01389-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumaran Y, Shah A, Katragadda A, Padgaonkar A, Zavatsky J, McGuire R, Serhan H, Elgafy H, Goel VK (2021) Iatrogenic muscle damage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and adjacent segment degeneration: a comparative finite element analysis of open and minimally invasive surgeries. Eur Spine J 30:2622–2630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06909-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Khoddam-Khorasani P, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A (2020) Effect of changes in the lumbar posture in lifting on trunk muscle and spinal loads: A combined in vivo, musculoskeletal, and finite element model study. J Biomech 104:109728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu T, Khalaf K, Adeeb S, El-Rich M (2019) Effects of lumbo-pelvic rhythm on trunk muscle forces and disc loads during forward flexion: A combined musculoskeletal and finite element simulation study. J Biomech 82:116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rajaee MA, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A (2021) A novel coupled musculoskeletal finite element model of the spine – Critical evaluation of trunk models in some tasks. J Biomech 119:110331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Morishita Y, Ohta H, Naito M, Matsumoto Y, Huang G, Tatsumi M, Takemitsu Y, Kida H (2011) Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization. Eur Spine J 20:1480–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1701-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Slade CG (2018) Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on lumbopelvic rhythm during activities of daily living. University of Kentucky

  24. Ghezelbash F, Shirazi-Adl A, Baghani M, Eskandari AH (2020) On the modeling of human intervertebral disc annulus fibrosus: Elastic, permanent deformation and failure responses. J Biomech 102:109463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.109463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shirazi-Adl A, Ahmed AM, Shrivastava SC (1986) Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression. Spine 11:914–927. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198611000-00012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Arjmand N, Gagnon D, Plamondon A, Shirazi-Adl A, Larivière C (2009) Comparison of trunk muscle forces and spinal loads estimated by two biomechanical models. Clin Biomech 24:533–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.05.008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Arjmand N, Gagnon D, Plamondon A, Shirazi-Adl A, Larivière C (2010) A comparative study of two trunk biomechanical models under symmetric and asymmetric loadings. J Biomech 43:485–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.09.032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Chang DG, Theiler R, Grob D (1991) Functional radiographic diagnosis of the lumbar spine: flexion—extension and lateral bending. Spine 16:562–571. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199105000-00014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Frobin W, Brinckmann P, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, Reikerås O (1996) Precision measurement of segmental motion from flexion;extension radiographs of the lumbar spine. Clin Biomech 11:457–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(96)00039-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jamshidnejad S, Arjmand N (2015) Variations in trunk muscle activities and spinal loads following posterior lumbar surgery: A combined in vivo and modeling investigation. Clin Biomech 30:1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidt H, Kettler A, Rohlmann A, Claes L, Wilke H-J (2007) The risk of disc prolapses with complex loading in different degrees of disc degeneration; A finite element analysis. Clin Biomech 22:988–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Schmidt H, Wilke H-J, Bergmann G (2006) Analysis of the influence of disc degeneration on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar motion segment using the finite element method. J Biomech 39:2484–2490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.07.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Galbusera F, Schmidt H, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Gottschalk A, Wilke H-J (2011) The mechanical response of the lumbar spine to different combinations of disc degenerative changes investigated using randomized poroelastic finite element models. Eur Spine J 20:563–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1586-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Connell GD, Guerin HL, Elliott DM (2009) Theoretical and uniaxial experimental evaluation of human annulus fibrosus degeneration. J Biomech Eng 131:111007. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3212104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Holzapfel G, Schulze-Bauer C, Feigl G, Regitnig P (2005) Single lamellar mechanics of the human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 3:125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-004-0053-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shojaei I, Salt EG, Bazrgari B (2020) A prospective study of lumbo-pelvic coordination in patients with non-chronic low back pain. J Biomech 102:109306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.07.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Larivière C, Gagnon D, Loisel P (2000) The effect of load on the coordination of the trunk for subjects with and without chronic low back pain during flexion; extension and lateral bending tasks. Clin Biomech 15:407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00006-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee S-H, Daffner SD, Wang JC, Davis BC, Alanay A, Kim JS (2015) The change of whole lumbar segmental motion according to the mobility of degenerated disc in the lower lumbar spine: a kinetic MRI study. Eur Spine J 24:1893–1900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3277-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen C-S, Cheng C-K, Liu C-L, Lo W-H (2001) Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys 23:485–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4533(01)00076-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fan W, Guo L-X (2021) Biomechanical investigation of lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with topping-off instrumentation using different dynamic stabilization devices. Spine 46:E1311–E1319. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13:375–377. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198803000-00029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Etebar S, Cahill DW (1999) Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg Spine 90:163–169. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.1999.90.2.0163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hostin R, McCarthy I, O'Brien M, Bess S, Line B, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton D, Gupta M, Ames C, Deviren V, Kebaish K, Shaffrey C, Wood K, Hart R, International Spine Study G (2013) Incidence, Mode, and Location of Acute Proximal Junctional Failures After Surgical Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity. Spine 38:1008-1015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318271319c

  44. Shiraz-Adl A (1989) Strain in fibers of a lumbar disc: analysis of the role of lifting in producing disc prolapse. Spine 14:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198901000-00019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim J, Yang S-J, Kim H, Kim Y, Park JB, DuBose C, Lim T-H (2012) Effect of shear force on intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration: an in vivo rat study. Ann Biomed Eng 40:1996–2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-012-0570-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Xia D-D, Lin S-L, Wang X-Y, Wang Y-L, Xu H-M, Zhou F, Tan J (2015) Effects of shear force on intervertebral disc: an in vivo rabbit study. Eur Spine J 24:1711–1719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3816-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Walter BA, Korecki CL, Purmessur D, Roughley PJ, Michalek AJ, Iatridis JC (2011) Complex loading affects intervertebral disc mechanics and biology. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19:1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2011.04.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Breau C, Shirazi-Adl A, de Guise J (1991) Reconstruction of a human ligamentous lumbar spine using CT images — A three-dimensional finite element mesh generation. Ann Biomed Eng 19:291–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02584304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ghezelbash F, Shirazi-Adl A, Arjmand N, El-Ouaaid Z, Plamondon A (2016) Subject-specific biomechanics of trunk: musculoskeletal scaling, internal loads and intradiscal pressure estimation. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 15:1699–1712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-016-0792-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to appreciate the advices of Dr. Parisa Azimi on surgical procedures and the assistance of Dr. Pouria Khoddam-khorasani in FE simulations.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (Grant number: G970504).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, 11155-9567, Iran

    Mahdi Ebrahimkhani & Navid Arjmand

  2. Division of Applied Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnique, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Aboulfazl Shirazi-Adl

Authors
  1. Mahdi Ebrahimkhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Navid Arjmand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aboulfazl Shirazi-Adl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Navid Arjmand.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ebrahimkhani, M., Arjmand, N. & Shirazi-Adl, A. Adjacent segments biomechanics following lumbar fusion surgery: a musculoskeletal finite element model study. Eur Spine J 31, 1630–1639 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07262-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07262-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation