Metastatic Burst Fracture Risk Assessment Based on Complex Loading of the Thoracic Spine
The mechanical integrity of vertebral bone is compromised when metastatic cancer cells migrate to the spine, rendering it susceptible to burst fracture under physiologic loading. Risk of burst fracture has been shown to be dependent on the magnitude of the applied load, however limited work has been conducted to determine the effect of load type on the stability of the metastatic spine. The objective of this study was to use biphasic finite element modeling to evaluate the effect of multiple loading conditions on a metastatically-involved thoracic spinal motion segment. Fifteen loading scenarios were analyzed, including axial compression, flexion, extension, lateral bending, torsion, and combined loads. Additional analyses were conducted to assess the impact of the ribcage on the stability of the thoracic spine. Results demonstrate that axial loading is the predominant load type leading to increased risk of burst fracture initiation, while rotational loading led to only moderate increases in risk. Inclusion of the ribcage was found to reduce the potential for burst fracture by 27%. These findings are important in developing a more comprehensive understanding of burst fracture mechanics and in directing future modeling efforts. The results in this study may also be useful in advising less harmful activities for patients affected by lytic spinal metastases.
KeywordsSpine Tumors Burst fracture Finite element modeling Ribcage
load-induced canal narrowing
posterior wall tensile hoop strain
Support for this work was provided by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
- 6.Bryant, J. D., T. David, P. H. Gaskell, S. King, and G. Lond. Rheology of bovine bone marrow. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 203:71–75, 1989.Google Scholar
- 12.Holdsworth, F. W. Fractures, dislocations, and fracture-dislocations of the spine. J. Bone Joint Surg. 45B(1):6–20, 1963.Google Scholar
- 13.Hong, J. H., J. H. Ah, T. H. Lim, and H. S. An. Correlation among permeability, apparent density, and porosity of human lumbar vertebral trabecular bone. In: Proceedings of the Transactions of the 44th Annual Meeting, Orthopaedic Research Society, New Orleans, 1998.Google Scholar
- 14.Jemal, A., R. C. Tiwari, T. Murray, A. Ghofoor, A. Samuels, E. J. Feuer, and M. J. Thun. Cancer statistics. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 54:8–29, 2004.Google Scholar
- 16.Lotz, J. C., P. A. Glazer, and E. C. Gryler. Tensile properties of the human vertebral endplate. In: Proccedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Helsinki, Finland, 1995.Google Scholar
- 26.Panjabi, M. M., T. R. Oxland, I. Yamamoto, and J. J. Crisco. Mechanical behaviour of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J. Bone Joint Surg. 76-A(3):413–424, 1994.Google Scholar
- 29.Puttlitz, C. M. A biomechanical investigation of the craniovertebral junction. Doctoral thesis, University of Iowa, 1999.Google Scholar
- 44.White, A. A., and M. M. Panjabi. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine 2nd ed. Philadelphia:JB Lippincott Company, 1992.Google Scholar
- 45.Whyne, C. M. Development of guidelines for the prophylactic treatment of metastatically involved vertebral bodies. Doctoral thesis, University of California, Berkley, 1999.Google Scholar
- 49.Wilke, H., A. Rohlmann, S. Neller, M. Schulthei, G. Bergmann, F. Graichen, and L. E. Claes. Is it possible to simulate physiologic loading conditions by applying pure moments? A comparison of in vivo and in vitro load component sin an internal fixator. Spine 26(6):636–642, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar