Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of Compressive Test of Biodegradable Lumbar Interbody Spinal Cage with Different Porous Structure Using Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Human-Centered Technology for a Better Tomorrow

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering ((LNME))

  • 896 Accesses

Abstract

Evaluation of spinal cage structures had been done using Computed tomography-based finite element analysis (CT/FEA) with homogenous bone properties. However, it is important to consider the inhomogeneity of bone properties in order to obtain more precise validation. This study compares the experimental and numerical analysis of CT/FEA by establishing relation between the Hounsfield Unit (HU) values, bone density and material properties. 6 cage designs with different pore structure were created and optimized based on the conventional bullet-shaped tip cage design. Specimens were fabricated using a fused deposition method (FDM) 3D printer. Unidirectional compression test machine was done and evaluated using FEA tool. A conventional bilateral mode configuration was applied to simulate standard PLIF procedure in the L4–L5. CT/FEA was done to characterize the stress profile of cage-endplate interface, cage body and failed element distribution. From the results, layers deviation and severe micro crack were seen at ruptured spinal cage specimen’s side surface. OPEN SOLID showed highest value of compressive value in the experiment and simulation. Finally, FEM stress profiles indicated that subsidence might have occurred for CLOSE 1 mm, OPEN SOLID, and OPEN 1 mm cage designs at the cage-endplate interface due to the sudden spike at endplate region. Overall, optimally designed PLA spinal cages have sufficient mechanical properties to support lumbar interbody loads. Furthermore, this optimization technique may be utilized to balance the complex requirements of load-transfer, stress shielding, and porosity when using biodegradable material for fusion spinal cages.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sivasampu S et al (2016) National Medical Care Statistics (NMCS) 2014. National Clinical Research Centre, National Healthcare Statistics Initiative

    Google Scholar 

  2. McAfee PC (1999) Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:859–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuslich SD, Ulstrom CL, Griffith SL, Ahern JW, Dowdle JD (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 (Phila. Pa. 1976) 23:1267–78; discussion 1279

    Google Scholar 

  4. Whitecloud TS III et al (1998) Degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine treated with intervertebral titanium cages and posterior instrumentation for circumferential fusion. J Spinal Disord 11:479–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanayama M et al (2000) In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices. J NeurosurgerySpine 93(2):259–265 

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dalenberg DD, Asher MA, Robinson RG, Jayaraman G (1993) The effect of a stiff spinal implant and its loosening on bone mineral content in canines. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:1862–1866 

    Google Scholar 

  7. van Dijk M, Smit TH, Sugihara S, Burger EH, Wuisman PI (2002) The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion: an in vivo model using poly(l-lactic Acid) and titanium cages. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976) 27:682–688

    Google Scholar 

  8. Almeida CR et al (2014) Impact of 3-D printed PLA- and chitosan-based scaffolds on human monocyte/macrophage responses: unraveling the effect of 3-D structures on inflammation. Acta Biomater 10:613–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Suyatma NE, Copinet A, Tighzert L, Coma V (2004) Mechanical and barrier properties of biodegradable films made from chitosan and poly (lactic acid) blends. J Polym Environ 12:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Toth JM et al (2002) Evaluation of 70/30 D, L-PLa for use as a resorbable interbody fusion cage. Orthopedics 25:s1131–s1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lazennec JY, Madi A, Rousseau MA, Roger B, Saillant G (2006) Evaluation of the 96/4 PLDLLA polymer resorbable lumbar interbody cage in a long term animal model. Eur Spine J 15:1545–1553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kang H, Lin CY, Hollister SJ (2010) Topology optimization of three dimensional tissue engineering scaffold architectures for prescribed bulk modulus and diffusivity. Struct Multidiscip Optim 42:633–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lin C-Y, Hsiao C-C, Chen P-Q, Hollister SJ (2004) Interbody fusion cage design using integrated global layout and local microstructure topology optimization. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976) 29:1747–54

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bose S, Darsell J, Kintner M, Hosick H, Bandyopadhyay A (2003) Pore size and pore volume effects on alumina and TCP ceramic scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C 23:479–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Farzadi A, Solati-Hashjin M, Asadi-Eydivand M, Osman NAA (2014) Effect of layer thickness and printing orientation on mechanical properties and dimensional accuracy of 3D printed porous samples for bone tissue engineering. PLoS ONE 9:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lim KM, Park TH, Lee SJ, Park SJ (2019) Design and biomechanical verification of additive manufactured composite spinal cage composed of porous titanium cover and PEEK body. Appl Sci 9

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jalil MH, Mazlan MH, Todo M (2017) Biomechanical comparison of polymeric spinal cages using Ct based finite element method. Int J Biosci Biochem Bioinforma 7:110–117

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vivanco JF et al (2014) Estimating the density of femoral head trabecular bone from hip fracture patients using computed tomography scan data. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 228:616–626

    Google Scholar 

  19. Keyak JH, Rossi SA, Jones KA, Skinner HB (1998) Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech 31:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mazlan MH, Todo M, Takano H, Yonezawa I (2014) Finite element analysis of osteoporotic vertebrae with first Lumbar (L1) vertebral compression fracture. Int J Appl Phys Math 4:267–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nachemson A (1966) The load on lumbar disks in different positions of the body. Clin Orthop Relat Res 45:107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eshraghi S, Das S (2012) Micromechanical finite-element modeling and experimental characterization of the compressive mechanical properties of polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds prepared by selective laser sintering for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 8:3138–3143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nicholson PH et al (1997) Structural and material mechanical properties of human vertebral cancellous bone. Med Eng Phys 19:729–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Miranda P, Pajares A, Guiberteau F (2008) Finite element modeling as a tool for predicting the fracture behavior of robocast scaffolds. Acta Biomater 4:1715–1724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Patterson AE (2018) Crack Propagation in 3-D Printed PLA: Finite Element Modeling, Test Bed Design, and Preliminary Experimental Results, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The medical data was kindly provided by collaboration with Juntendo University and Kyushu University, Japan. The authors would like to thanks the Universiti Malaysia Pahang (www.ump.edu.my) and Malaysia Ministry of Education, for laboratory facilities and financial assistance under FRGS-RACER Research Grant project No. RACER/1/2019/TK03/UMP//2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pahang, Malaysia

    Muhammad Hilmi Jalil

  2. Faculty of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, Malaysia

    M. H. Mazlan

  3. Research Institute for Applied Mechanics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    M. Todo

Authors
  1. Muhammad Hilmi Jalil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. H. Mazlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Todo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Hilmi Jalil .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Mohd Hasnun Arif Hassan

  2. Human Engineering Research Group (HUMEN), Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Zulkifli Ahmad (a) Manap

  3. Human Engineering Research Group (HUMEN), Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Mohamad Zairi Baharom

  4. Human Engineering Research Group (HUMEN), Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Nasrul Hadi Johari

  5. Human Engineering Research Group (HUMEN), Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Ummu Kulthum Jamaludin

  6. Human Engineering Research Group (HUMEN), Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Muhammad Hilmi Jalil

  7. Human Engineering Research Group (HUMEN), Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Idris Mat Sahat

  8. Human Engineering Research Group (HUMEN), Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Mohd Nadzeri Omar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jalil, M.H., Mazlan, M.H., Todo, M. (2022). Validation of Compressive Test of Biodegradable Lumbar Interbody Spinal Cage with Different Porous Structure Using Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis. In: Hassan, M.H.A., et al. Human-Centered Technology for a Better Tomorrow. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4115-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4115-2_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-4114-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-4115-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation