Numerical Simulation of the Cervical Spine in a Normal Subject and a Patient with Intervertebral Cage under Various Loadings and in Various Positions
International Clinical Neuroscience Journal,
Vol. 3 No. 2 (2016),
22 September 2016
Background: Cervical spine sustains most of thevertebral column injuries, among other injuries, the disc degeneration and damage that lead to replacement of the damaged disc with cage or artificial disc.
Methods: The C4 to C6 vertebrae of a normal subject and a person with interbody fusion cage were 3d modelled and then analyzed using Finite element method. The results of maximum stress and strain in cervical spine of the normal subject and patient were compared in three positions: standing, lying with axial rotation of neck and standing with axial rotation of neck.
Results: The maximum principal strain and stress in the patient are respectively 10.5% and 14.5% greater than those in normal subject in standing position, howeverin lying position when the head has axial rotation, the maximum principal strain and stress are in the normal subject 6.2% and 16.3% greater than those in patient, respectively. The difference between these results and the results of strain and stress in standing position when the head has axial rotation is very small. This outcome is due to smallness of the stress exerted on cervical spine as a result of the head weight (131-150 Pa).
Conclusion: In contrary to the constraint between disc and vertebrae, there is no friction between cage and vertebrae and this leads to maximum stress transfer to the first vertebra above the cage in patient. However, the maximum stress is ultimately less in the patient with fusion cage than the normal subject. Generally, only the neck rotations are the cause of cervical spine injury in normal neck movements.
- Cervical spine
- Axial rotation
- Principal strain
- Fusion cage
How to Cite
Zafarparandeh I, Erbulut DU, Lazoglu I, Ozer AF. Development of a finite element model of the human cervical spine. Turkish neurosurgery. 2013 Dec;24(3):312-8.
Daniels JM, editor. Common Musculoskeletal Problems: A Handbook. Springer; 2015 Apr 4.
Hayashi K. Clinical anatomy of the cervical spine. InCervical Spondylosis And Similar Disorders 1998 Sep 21 (pp. 15-32).
Brolin K. Cervical Spine Injuries-Numerical Analyses and Statistical Survey, 2002.
Zhou SW, Guo LX, Zhang SQ, Tang CY. Study on cervical spine injuries in vehicle side impact. Open Mech Eng J. 2010 Feb;4:29-35.
Teo EC, Paul JP, Evans JH. Finite element stress analysis of a cadaver second cervical vertebra. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing. 1994 Mar;32(2):236-8.
Graham RS, Oberlander EK, Stewart JE, Griffiths DJ. Validation and use of a finite element model of C-2 for determination of stress and fracture patterns of anterior odontoid loads. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2000 Jul;93(1):117-25.
Ng HW, Teo EC. Nonlinear finite-element analysis of the lower cervical spine (C4–C6) under axial loading. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques. 2001 Jun 1;14(3):201-10.
Tan KW, Lee VS, Teo EC, Zhang QH, Ng HW, Seng KY. A C2-C3 finite element model to determine the stress patterns of odontoid loads. InSummer Bioengineering Conference, Florida 2003.
Zhang QH, Teo EC, Ng HW, Lee VS. Finite element analysis of moment-rotation relationships for human cervical spine. Journal of biomechanics. 2006 Dec 31;39(1):189-93.
Chiang MF, Teng JM, Huang CH, Cheng CK, Chen CS, Chang TK, Chao SH. Finite element analysis of cage subsidence in cervical interbody fusion. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering. 2004 Dec 1;24(4):201-8.
Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J. Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
Womack W, Leahy PD, Patel VV, Puttlitz CM. Finite element modeling of kinematic and load transmission alterations due to cervical intervertebral disc replacement. Spine. 2011 Aug 1;36(17):E1126-33.
Denozière G, Ku DN. Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. Journal of biomechanics. 2006 Dec 31;39(4):766-75.
Gandhi AA. Biomechanical analysis of the cervical spine following total disc arthroplasty: an experimental and finite element investigation.
Yang SW, Chien YY, Chen MH. Change of Mobility and Stress Morphology due to Different Types of Artificial Cervical Spine Implementation: a Finite Element Analysis. InProceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2014 (Vol. 2).
Lin CY, Chuang SY, Chiang CJ, Tsuang YH, Chen WP. Finite element analysis of cervical spine with different constrained types of total disc replacement. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology. 2014 Jun;14(03):1450038.
Lee JH, Park WM, Kim YH, Jahng TA. A biomechanical analysis of an artificial disc with a shock-absorbing core property by using whole-cervical spine finite element analysis. Spine. 2016 Jan.
Jaumard NV, Bauman JA, Guarino BB, Gokhale AJ, Lipschutz DE, Weisshaar CL, Welch WC, Winkelstein BA. ProDisc cervical arthroplasty does not alter facet joint contact pressure during lateral bending or axial torsion. Spine. 2013 Jan 15;38(2):E84-93.
Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, Yang L, Yang H, Yuan W, Chen D. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. European Spine Journal. 2013 Jul 1;22(7):1539-46.
Bahramshahi N. Finite Element Analysis of middle cervical spine. Theses and Dissertations, Paper. 2007;966.
Nishida N, Kato Y, Imajo Y, Kawano S, Taguchi T. Biomechanical analysis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the influence of dynamic factors and morphometry of the spinal cord. The journal of spinal cord medicine. 2012 Jul 1;35(4):256-61.
Moroney SP, Schultz AB, Miller JA. Analysis and measurement of neck loads. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 1988 Sep 1;6(5):713-20.
Moroney SP, Schultz AB, Miller JA, Andersson GB. Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. Journal of biomechanics. 1988 Dec 31;21(9):769-79.
- Abstract Viewed: 739 times
- PDF Downloaded: 352 times