Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental Evaluation of Vertebral Strain in Lumbar Total Disc Replacement

  • Research paper
  • Published:
Experimental Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Total disk replacement (TDR) has met considerable reluctance from the medical community, mainly in the United States, because the insurance companies have refused to reimburse surgeons for fear of delayed complications, revisions and unknown secondary costs. Typical long-term vertebrae-implant related structural complications include subsidence, migration, implant displacement, endplate fracture, wear and loosening. Intervertebral disc implant size, shape, position, endplate removal and compressive strength of trabecular bone further affect the risk of implant subsidence and loosening. The aim of the present study is to understand the combined effects of the different depth positioning of the ProDisc-L implant and endplate removal during surgery on the vertebral bone strain behaviour. Manufactured synthetic spinal L3-L4 segments were used to experimentally predict vertebrae cortex strain behaviour for different depth implant positioning and endplate thickness removal. In addition, validated finite element models were developed to assess the structural behaviour of cancellous-bone. Measured cortex strains showed significant differences relative to the intact vertebra for the most extreme depth implant positioning. The endplate thickness reduction tends to decrease significantly compressive cortex strains for all strain gauges. A two- to three-fold cancellous-bone strain increase occurs when more than 50% of the endplate thickness is removed, independently of the depth implant position. It is concluded that the implanted strain distribution that better fits intact vertebra strain behaviour is achieved when the depth centred implant position is combined with a partial endplate thickness removal.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sandhu F, Blumenthal S, Grunch B, Kimball B, Ferko N, Hollmann S (2017) Barriers to and budget impact of lumbar Total disc replacement utilization. Spine. 42(Suppl 24):S112–S114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hart RA, DePasse JM, Daniels AH (2017) Failure to launch: what the rejection of lumbar Total disk replacement tells us about American spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg 30:E759–E764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Siepe CJ, Heider F, Wiechert K, Hitzl W, Ishak B, Mayer MH (2014) Mid- to long-term results of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective analysis with 5- to 10-year follow-up. Spine J 14:1417–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Garcia R Jr, Yue JJ, Blumenthal S, Coric D, Patel VV, Leary SP, Dinh DH, Buttermann GR, Deutsch H, Girardi F, Billys J, Miller LE (2015) Lumbar Total disc replacement for Discogenic low Back pain: two-year outcomes of the activL multicenter randomized controlled IDE clinical trial. Spine. 40:1873–1881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Salzmann SN, Plais N, Shue J, Girardi FP (2017) Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:153–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Formica M, Divano S, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Zanirato A, Formica C, Felli L (2017) Lumbar total disc arthroplasty: outdated surgery or here to stay procedure? A systematic review of current literature. J Orthop Traumatol 18:197–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee CK (2007) Osteopenia and total disc prosthesis subsidence: inclusion/exclusion criteria for total disc replacement. SAS J 1:82–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Auerbach JD, Ballester CM, Hammond F, Carine ET, Balderston RA, Elliott DM (2010) The effect of implant size and device keel on vertebral compression properties in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 10:333–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Oxland TR, Grant JP, Dvorak MF, Fisher CG (2003) Effects of endplate removal on the structural properties of the lower lumbar vertebral bodies. Spine 28:771–777

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zigler J, Garcia R (2015) ISASS policy statement - lumbar artificial disc. Int J Spine Surg 9:7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Osterhoff G, Morgan EF, Shefelbine SJ, Karim L, McNamara LM, Augat P (2016) Bone mechanical properties and changes with osteoporosis. Injury. 47:S11–S20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou SH, McCarthy ID, McGregor AH, Coombs RR, Hughes SP (2000) Geometrical dimensions of the lower lumbar vertebrae--analysis of data from digitised CT images. Eur Spine J 9:242–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Saraste H, Brostrom LA, Aparisi T, Axdorph G (1985) Radiographic measurement of the lumbar spine – a clinical and experimental study on man. Spine 10:236–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kemper AR, McNally C, Duma SM (2007) The influence of strain rate on the compressive stiffness properties of human lumbar intervertebral discs. Biomed Sci Instrum 43:176–181

    Google Scholar 

  15. Smeathers JE, Joanes DN (1988) Dynamic compressive properties of human lumbar intervertebral joints: a comparison between fresh and thawed specimens. J Biomech 21:425–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. ASTM F2423-11 (2016) Standard guide for functional, kinematic, and Wear assessment of Total disc prostheses. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  17. Prodisc-L (2017) Modular intervertebral disc prosthesis for stabilizing the lumbar spine and restoring the physiological range of motion – surgical technique DePuy Synthes Spine, a division of Synthes GmbH

  18. Completo A, Nascimento A, Ramos A, Simões J (2015) Failure analysis of C-5 after total disc replacement with ProDisc-C at 1 and 2 levels and in combination with a fusion cage: finite-element and biomechanical models. J Neurosurg Spine 22:639–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE (2003) Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 12:413–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goreham-Voss CM, Hyde PJ, Hall RM, Fisher J, Brown TD (2010) Cross-shear implementation in sliding-distance-coupled finite element analysis of wear in metal-on-polyethylene total joint arthroplasty: intervertebral total disc replacement as an illustrative application. J Biomech 43:1674–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Completo A, Simões J, Fonseca F (2008) Experimental evaluation of strain shielding in distal femur in revision TKA. Exp Mech 48:817–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Completo A, Fonseca F, Simões JA, Ramos A, Relvas C (2012) A new press-fit stem concept to reduce the risk of end-of-stem pain at revision TKA: a pre-clinical study. Knee 19:537–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pentecost R, Murray R, Brindley H Fatigue (1964) insufficiency, and pathological fractures. JAMA. 187:1001–1004

  24. Lambers F, Bouman A, Rimnac C, Hernandez C (2013) Microdamage caused by fatigue loading in human cancellous bone: relationship to reductions in bone biomechanical performance. PLoS One 8:e83662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Frost H (2003) Bone's mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 275:1081–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heiner A (2008) Structural properties of fourth-generation composite femurs and tibias. J Biomech 41:3282–3284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Completo A, Duarte R, Fonseca F, Simões JA, Ramos A, Relvas C (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of different reconstructive techniques of proximal tibia in revision total knee arthroplasty: an in-vitro and finite element analysis. Clin Biomech 28:291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eswaran SK, Gupta A, Adams MF, Keaveny TM (2006) Cortical and trabecular load sharing in the human vertebral body. J Bone Miner Res 21:307–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ferguson SJ, Steffen T (2003) Biomechanics of the aging spine. Eur Spine J 12(Suppl 2):S97–S103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kerner J, Huiskes R, van Lenthe GH, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B, Engh CA, Amis AA (1999) Correlation between pre-operative periprosthetic bone density and post-operative bone loss in THA can be explained by strain-adaptive remodelling. J Biomech 32:695–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gross T, Rubin C (1995) Uniformity of resorptive bone loss induced by disuse. J Orthop Res 13:708–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Taylor M, Tanner K (1997) Fatigue failure of cancellous bone: a possible cause of implant migration and loosening. J-Bone-Joint-Surg Br 79:181–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Choi K, Goldstein SA (1992) A comparison of the fatigue behavior of human trabecular and cortical bone tissue. J Biomech 25:1371–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hongo M, Abe E, Shimada Y, Murai H, Ishikawa N, Sato K (1999) Surface strain distribution on thoracic and lumbar vertebrae under axial compression. The role in burst fractures. Spine. 24:1197–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shah JS, Hampson WG, Jayson MI (1978) The distribution of surface strain in the cadaveric lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60:246–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cristofolini L, Brandolini N, Danesi V, Juszczyk MM, Erani P, Viceconti M (2013) Strain distribution in the lumbar vertebrae under different loading configurations. Spine J 13:1281–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pollintine P, Dolan P, Tobias JH, Adams MA (2004) Intervertebral disc degeneration can lead to "stress-shielding" of the anterior vertebral body: a cause of osteoporotic vertebral fracture? Spine. 29:774–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support through project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028424, which was funded by the Operational Program for Competiveness and Internationalization (COMPETE 2020) in its component FEDER and by Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) through the OE budget. The authors also acknowledge FCT grant UID/EMS/00481/2019–FCT and the infrastructures support CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-022083-Centro Portugal Regional Operational Programme (Centro2020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    A. Semitela & A.M.G. Completo

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Coimbra University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal

    F. Fonseca

Authors
  1. A. Semitela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Fonseca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A.M.G. Completo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A.M.G. Completo.

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

Semitela, A., Fonseca, F. & Completo, A. Experimental Evaluation of Vertebral Strain in Lumbar Total Disc Replacement. Exp Mech 60, 119–128 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-019-00545-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-019-00545-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation