Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis

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

Abstract.

Intervertebral cages in the lumbar spine have been an advancement in spinal fusion to relieve low back pain. Even though initial stability is accepted as a requirement for fusion, there are other factors. The load transfer and its effect on the tissues adjacent to the cage may also play an essential role, which is not easily detectable with experimental tests. In this study the effects of an intervertebral cage insertion on a lumbar functional spinal unit were investigated using finite element analyses. The influences of cage material, cancellous bone density and spinal loading for the stresses in a functional spinal unit were evaluated. Three-dimensional (3D) finite element models of L2-L3 were developed for this purpose. An anterior approach for a monobloc, box-shaped cage was modelled. Models with cage were compared to the corresponding intact ones. The results showed that inserting a cage increased the maximum von Mises stress and changed the load transfer in the adjacent structures. Varying the cage material or the loading conditions had a much smaller influence than varying the cancellous bone density. The denser the cancellous bone, the more the stress was concentrated underneath the cage, while the remaining regions were unloaded. This study showed that the density of the underlying cancellous bone is a more important factor for the biomechanical behaviour of a motion segment stabilized with a cage, and its eventual clinical success, than the cage material or the applied load. Inserting an intervertebral cage markedly changed the load transfer. The altered stress distribution may trigger bone remodelling and explain damage of the underlying vertebrae.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agazzi S, Reverdin A, May D (1999) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages: an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg 91:186–192

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Augat P, Link T, Lang TF, et al (1998) Anisotropy of the elastic modulus of trabecular bone specimens from different anatomical locations. Med Eng Phys 20:124–131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bagby G (1988) Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics 11:931–934

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boden S, Sumner D (1995) Biologic factors affecting spinal fusion and bone regeneration. Spine [Suppl] 20:102-112

  5. Brantigan J, Steffee A, Lewis M, Quinn L, Persenaire J (2000). Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system. Spine 25:1437–1446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brinckmann P, Frobin W, Hierholzer E, Horst M (1983) Deformation of the vertebral end-plate under axial loading of the spine. Spine 8:851–856

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter DR, Hayes WC (1976) Bone compressive strength: the influence of density and strain rate. Science 194:1174–1176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dammak M, Shirazi-Adl A, Zukor D (1997) Analysis of cementless implants using interface nonlinear friction – experimental and finite element studies. J Biomech 30:121–129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frei HP, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, Nolte LP (2001) The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine 26:2080–2089

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goel VK, Kong W, Han JS, Weinstein JN, Gilbertson LG (1993) A combined finite element and optimization investigation of lumbar spine mechanics with and without muscles. Spine 18:1531–1541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goh J, Wong H-K, Thambay A, Yu C-S (2000) Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability. Spine 25:35–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grant J, Oxland T, Dvorak M (2001) Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine 26:889–896

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grosland N, Goel V, Grobler L (1999) Comparative biomechanical investigation of multiple interbody fusion cages: a finite element analysis. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, Anaheim

  14. Jost B, Cripton P, Lund T, et al (1998) Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density. Eur Spine J 7:132–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kettler A, Wilke H-J, Dietl R, Krammer M, Lumenta C, Claes L (2000) Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. J Neurosurg 92:87–92

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA (1998) Finite element modeling approaches of human cervical spine facet joint capsule. J Biomech 31:371–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuslich S, Ulstrom C, Griffith S, Ahern J, Dowdle J (1998) The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion: history, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial. Spine 23:1267–1279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuslich S, Danielson G, Dowdle J, et al (2000) Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine 25:2656–2662

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lu M, Hutton WC (1996) Do bending, twisting, and diurnal fluid changes in the disc affect the propensity to prolapse? A viscoelastic finite element model. Spine 21:2570–2579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lund T, Oxland T, Jost B, et al (1998) Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:351–359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mann K, Bartel D, Wright T, Burstein A (1995) Coulomb frictional interfaces in modeling cemented total hip replacements: a more realistic model. J Biomech 28:1067–1078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marchand F, Ahmed A (1990) Investigation of the laminate structure of lumbar disc anulus fibrosus. Spine 15:402–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McAfee P (1999) Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. Current concepts review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:859–880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McCutchen C (1962) The frictional properties of animal joints. Wear 5:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mulholland R (2000) Cages: outcome and complications. Eur Spine J 9:110-113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Otto J, Callaghan J, Brown T (2001) Methods to achieve a numerically stable finite element model of a multi-contact interface rotating platform total knee. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, San Francisco

  27. Oxland TR, Lund T (2000) Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review. Eur Spine J 9 [Suppl 1]:95–101

  28. Oxland T, Lund T, Jost B, et al (1996) The relative importance of vertebral bone density and disc degeneration in spinal flexibility and interbody implant performance. Spine 21:2558–2569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Oxland T, Hoffer Z, Nydegger T, Rathonyi G, Nolte L-P (2000) A comparative biomechanical investigation of anterior lumbar interbody cages: central and bilateral approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:383–393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pavlov P, Spruit M, Havinfa M, Anderson P, van Limbeek J, Jacobs W (2000) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with threaded fusion cages and autologous bone grafts. Eur Spine J 9:224–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ray C (1997) Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 22:667–680

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roberts S, McCall I, Menage J, Haddaway M, Eisenstein S (1997) Does the thickness of the vertebral subchondral bone reflect the composition of the intervertebral disc? Eur Spine J 6:385–389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sharma M, Langrana NA, Rodriguez J (1995) Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine 20:887–900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shirazi-Adl SA, Shrivastava SC, Ahmed AM (1984) Stress analysis of the lumbar disc-body unit in compression. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element study. Spine 9:120–134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Silva MJ, Keaveny TM, Hayes WC (1997) Load sharing between the shell and centrum in the lumbar vertebral body. Spine 22:140–150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Smit T, Odgaard A, Schneider E (1997) Structure and function of vertebral trabecular bone. Spine 22:2823–2833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Aebi M (2000) Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine 25:1077–1084

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Fruth I, Aebi M (2000) Cages: designs and concepts. Eur Spine J 9 [Suppl 1]:89–94

  40. Tsantrizos A, Andreou A, Aebi M, Steffen T (2000) Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs. Eur Spine J 9:14–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Tsuji H, Hirano N, Ohshima H, Ishihara H, Terahata N, Motoe T (1993) Structural variation of the anterior and posterior anulus fibrosus in the development of human lumbar intervertebral disc. Spine 18:204–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tullberg T (1998) Failure of a carbon fiber implant: a case report. Spine 23:1804–1806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Weiner K, Fraser R (1998) Spine update: lumbar interbody cages. Spine 23:634–640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements.

The authors thank Dr. Qingmao Hu for assistance with the segmentation of the CT slices.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. M. E. Müller Institute for Biomechanics, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 35, PO Box 30, 3010, Bern, Switzerland

    Anne Polikeit, Stephen J. Ferguson, Lutz P. Nolte & Tracy E. Orr

Authors
  1. Anne Polikeit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen J. Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lutz P. Nolte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tracy E. Orr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Polikeit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Polikeit, A., Ferguson, S.J., Nolte, L.P. et al. Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 12, 413–420 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0505-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0505-8

Keywords.

Search

Navigation