A Mechano-regulation Model to Optimize Design of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Fixation Devices for Treatment of Fractured Vertebrae

  • A. Boccaccio
  • D. J. Kelly
  • C. Pappalettere
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation techniques play a role of crucial relevance in the clinical practice. In spite of their consolidated use, little is reported in the literature to provide a mechanobiological explanation on how design of fixation devices can affect the healing process within fractured vertebrae.

The aim of the study is to develop a multi-scale mechano-regulation model capable of predicting how the patterns of tissue differentiation within a vertebral fracture change in the presence or in the absence of fixation devices and how the dimensions of the device, and the materials it is made from, can affect the outcome of the healing process.

To this purpose, a multi-scale mechano-regulation model is developed that combines a macro-scale model representing the spinal segment L3-L4-L5 including the fractured body of the L4 vertebra, and a micro-scale model of a fractured portion of cancellous bone. The macro-scale model includes also a minimally invasive percutaneous fixation device. The above mentioned model allows us to investigate how spatial and temporal patterns of tissue differentiation in the fracture gap change for different dimensions of the fixation device components and for different materials (Ti-6Al-4V alloy and Co-Cr alloy). Furthermore, the model provides information on the stress state in the fixation device and hence allows the risk of failure of the device itself to be estimated.

The mechanical properties of the forming tissue change as the healing process progresses. In order to validate the mechano-regulation model, displacement fields will be measured with moiré and holography and compared with numerical computations.

The model predicts that fixation devices significantly shorten healing times. Increasing values of the rod diameter D and decreasing values of its radius of curvature R lead to shorter durations of the healing period. Manufacturing the rods in Cobalt-Chrome alloy is predicted to reduce slightly the healing period by providing greater mechanical stability within the fracture callus.


Mechanobiology Vertebral fracture Tissue differentiation Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation Moiré 


  1. 1.
    Mumford J, Weinstein JN, Spratt KF et al (1993) Thoracolumbar burst fractures. The clinical efficacy and outcome of nonoperative management. Spine 18:955–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shen WJ, Shen YS (1999) Nonsurgical treatment of three-column thoracolumbar junction burst fractures without neurologic deficit. Spine 24:412–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shen WJ, Liu TJ, Shen YS (2001) Nonoperative treatment versus posterior fixation for thoracolumbar junction burst fractures without neurologic deficit. Spine 26:1038–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A et al (2003) Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:773–781Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang ST, Ma HL, Liu CL et al (2006) Is fusion necessary for surgically treated burst fractures of the thoracolumbar and lumbar spine? A prospective, randomized study. Spine 31:2646–2452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seybold EA, Sweeney CA, Fredrickson BE et al (1999) Functional outcome of low lumbar burst fractures. A multicenter review of operative and nonoperative treatment of L3-L5. Spine 24:2154–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Been HD, Poolman RW, Ubags LH (2004) Clinical outcome and radiographic results after surgical treatment of post-traumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis following simple type A fractures. Eur Spine J 13:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chow GH, Nelson BJ, Gebhard JS et al (1996) Functional outcome of thoracolumbar burst fractures managed with hyperextension casting or bracing and early mobilization. Spine 21:2170–2175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pape HC, Giannoudis P, Krettek C (2002) The timing of fracture treatment in polytrauma patients: relevance of damage control orthopedic surgery. Am J Surg 183:622–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lacroix D, Prendergast PJ (2002) A mechano-regulation model for tissue differentiation during fracture healing: analysis of gap size and loading. J Biomech 35:1163–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carter DR, Blenman PR, Beaupré GS (1988) Correlations between mechanical stress history and tissue differentiation in initial fracture healing. J Orthop Res 6:736–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Claes LE, Heigele CA (1999) Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J Biomech 32:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isaksson H, Wilson W, van Donkellaar CC et al (2006) Comparison of biophysical stimuli for mechano-regulation of tissue differentiation during fracture healing. J Biomech 39:1507–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gòmez-Benito MJ, Garcìa-Aznar JM, Kuiper JH et al (2005) Influence of fracture gap size on the pattern of long bone healing: a computational study. J Theor Biol 235:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ (2005) Mechano-regulation of stem cell differentiation and tissue regeneration in osteochondral defects. J Biomech 38:1413–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boccaccio A, Pappalettere C, Kelly DJ (2007) The influence of expansion rates on mandibular distraction osteogenesis: a computational analysis. Ann Biomed Eng 35:1940–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boccaccio A, Prendergast PJ, Pappalettere C et al (2008) Tissue differentiation and bone regeneration in an osteotomized mandible: a computational analysis of the latency period. Med Biol Eng Comput 46:283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boccaccio A, Lamberti L, Pappalettere C (2008) Effects of aging on the latency period in mandibular distraction osteogenesis: a computational mechano-biological analysis. J Mech Med Biol 8:203–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boccaccio A, Ballini A, Pappalettere C et al (2011) Finite element method (FEM), mechanobiology and biomimetic scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Sci 7:112–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shefelbine SJ, Augat P, Claes L et al (2005) Trabecular bone fracture healing simulation with finite element analysis and fuzzy logic. J Biomech 38:2440–2450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boccaccio A, Kelly DJ, Pappalettere C (2011) A mechano-regulation model of fracture repair in vertebral bodies. J Orthop Res 29:433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boccaccio A, Vena P, Gastaldi D et al (2008) Finite element analysis in cancellous bone failure in the vertebral body of healthy and osteoporotic subjects. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 222:1023–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boccaccio A, Kelly DJ, Pappalettere C (2012) A model of tissue differentiation and bone remodelling in fractured vertebrae treated with minimally invasive percutaneous fixation. Med Biol Eng Comput 50:947–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boccaccio A, Frassanito MC, Lamberti L, Brunelli R, Maulucci G, Monaci M, Papi M, Pappalettere C, Parasassi T, Sylla L, Urini F, De Spirito M (2012) Nanoscale characterization of the biomechanical hardening of bovine zona pellucida. J R Soc Interface 9:2871–2882CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Meccanica, Matematica e ManagementPolitecnico di BariBariItaly
  2. 2.Centre for Bioengineering, Department of Mechanical EngineeringTrinity College DublinDublin2Ireland

Personalised recommendations