Skip to main content

Effect of an artificial disc on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study

European Spine Journal volume 18, pages 89–97 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

The effects of different parameters on the mechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine were in most cases determined deterministically with only one uncertain parameter varied at a time while the others were kept fixed. Thus most parameter combinations were disregarded. The aim of the study was to determine in a probabilistic finite element study how intervertebral rotation, intradiscal pressure, and contact force in the facet joints are affected by the input parameters implant position, implant ball radius, presence of scar tissue, and gap size in the facet joints. An osseoligamentous finite element model of the lumbar spine ranging from L3 vertebra to L5/S1 intervertebral disc was used. An artificial disc with a fixed center of rotation was inserted at level L4/L5. The model was loaded with pure moments of 7.5 Nm to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion. In a probabilistic study the implant position in anterior–posterior (ap) and in lateral direction, the radius of the implant ball, and the gap size of the facet joint were varied. After implanting an artificial disc, scar tissue may develop, replacing the anterior longitudinal ligament. Thus presence and absence of scar tissue were also simulated. For each loading case studied, intervertebral rotations, intradiscal pressures and contact forces in the facet joints were calculated for 1,000 randomized input parameter combinations in order to determine the probable range of these output parameters. Intervertebral rotation at implant level varies strongly for different combinations of the input parameters. It is mainly affected by gap size, ap-position and implant ball radius for flexion, by scar tissue and implant ball radius for extension and lateral bending, and by gap size and implant ball radius for axial torsion. For extension, intervertebral rotation at implant level varied between 1.4° and 7.5°. Intradiscal pressure in the adjacent discs is only slightly affected by all input parameters. Contact forces in the facet joints at implant level vary strongly for the different combinations of the input parameters. For flexion, forces are 0 in 63% of the cases, but for small gap sizes and large implant ball radii they reach values of up to 533 N. Similar results are found for extension with a maximum predicted force of 560 N. Here the forces are mainly influenced by gap size, implant ball radius and scar tissue. The forces vary between 0 and 300 N for lateral bending and between 0 and 200 N for axial torsion. The parameters that have the greatest effect in both loading cases are the same as those for extension. Intervertebral rotation and contact force in the facet joints depend strongly on the input parameters studied. The probabilistic study shows a large variation of the results and likelihood of certain values. Clinical studies will be required to show whether or not there is a strong correlation of parameter combinations that cause high facet joint forces and low back pain after total disc replacement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

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

References

  1. Cramer GD, Gregerson DM, Knudsen JT, Hubbard BB, Ustas LM, Cantu JA (2002) The effects of side-posture positioning and spinal adjusting on the lumbar Z joints: a randomized controlled trial with sixty-four subjects. Spine 27:2459–2466. doi:10.1097/00007632-200211150-00008

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dar FH, Meakin JR, Aspden RM (2002) Statistical methods in finite element analysis. J Biomech 35:1155–1161. doi:10.1016/S0021-9290(02)00085-4

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32:661–666. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000257554.67505.45

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, Gilbertson LG, Wilder DG (2001) Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 26:E122–E129. doi:10.1097/00007632-200103150-00004

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Eberlein R, Holzapfel GA, Schulze-Bauer CAJ (2000) An anisotropic model for annulus tissue and enhanced finite element analysis of intact lumbar disc bodies. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 4:209–229. doi:10.1080/10255840108908005

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel T, Biyani A, Sairyo K, Vishnubhotla S, Matyas A, Cowgill I, Shaw M, Long R, Dick D, Panjabi MM, Serhan H (2005) Effects of charite artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol. Spine 30:2755–2764. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000195897.17277.67

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grauer JN, Biyani A, Faizan A, Kiapour A, Sairyo K, Ivanov A, Ebraheim NA, Patel T, Goel VK (2006) Biomechanics of two-level Charite artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus single-level disc placement combination. Spine J 6:659–666. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.03.011

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haldar A, Mahadevan S (2000) Probability, reliability, and statistical methods in engineering design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y, Aunoble S, Hoste D, Bley B, Friesem T (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36:315–322. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.02.001

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mayer HM (2005) Total lumbar disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1029–1037. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B8.16151

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A, Qose I (2002) Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S124–S130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moumene M, Geisler FH (2007) Comparison of biomechanical function at ideal and varied surgical placement for two lumbar artificial disc implant designs: mobile-core versus fixed-core. Spine 32:1840–1851. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31811ec29c

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nolte LP, Panjabi MM, Oxland TR (1990) Biomechanical properties of lumbar spinal ligaments. In: Heimke G, Soltesz U, Lee AJC (eds) Clinical implant materials, advances in biomaterials, vol 9. Elsevier, Heidelberg, pp 663–668

  14. Panjabi MM, Oxland T, Takata K, Goel V, Duranceau J, Krag M (1993) Articular facets of the human spine. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine 18:1298–1310. doi:10.1097/00007632-199308000-00009

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pitzen T, Kettler A, Drumm J, Nabhan A, Steudel WI, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2007) Cervical spine disc prosthesis: radiographic, biomechanical and morphological post mortal findings 12 weeks after implantation. A retrieval example. Eur Spine J 16:1015–1020. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0312-3

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rohlmann A, Bauer L, Zander T, Bergmann G, Wilke HJ (2006) Determination of trunk muscle forces for flexion and extension by using a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and measured in vivo data. J Biomech 39:981–989. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.02.019

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rohlmann A, Neller S, Claes L, Bergmann G, Wilke H-J (2001) Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 26:E557–E561. doi:10.1097/00007632-200112150-00014

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G (2005) Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants. Eur Spine J 14:445–453. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0784-3

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G (2005) Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on the biomechanical behavior of the lumbar spine. Spine 30:738–743. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000157413.72276.c4

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bock B, Bergmann G (2008) Effect of position and height of a mobile core type artificial disc on the mechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine. Proc Inst Mech Eng 222:229–239. doi:10.1243/09544119JEIM241

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.07.026

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sharma M, Langrana NA, Rodriguez J (1995) Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine 20:887–900. doi:10.1097/00007632-199504150-00003

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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. doi:10.1097/00007632-198611000-00012

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154. doi:10.1007/s005860050045

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2006) Comparison of conventional and kinematic modeling of an artificial disc. In: 7th International symposium on computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. Antibes Juan Les Pins, France. ISBN 0-9549670-2-X

  26. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Bock B, Bergmann G (2007) Biomechanische Konsequenzen von verschiedenen Positionierungen bewegungserhaltender Bandscheibenimplantate. Eine Finite-Elemente-Studie an der Lendenwirbelsäule. Orthopade 36:205–211. doi:10.1007/s00132-007-1056-9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Calisse J, Bergmann G (2001) Estimation of muscle forces in the lumbar spine during upper-body inclination. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16:73–80. doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00108-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The study was financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, Germany (Ro 581/17-2).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Julius Wolff Institut, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Antonius Rohlmann, Anke Mann, Thomas Zander & Georg Bergmann

Authors
  1. Antonius Rohlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anke Mann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Zander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georg Bergmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonius Rohlmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rohlmann, A., Mann, A., Zander, T. et al. Effect of an artificial disc on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study. Eur Spine J 18, 89–97 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0836-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0836-1

Keywords

  • Artificial disc
  • Finite element analysis
  • Probabilistic study
  • Lumbar spine