ISSN 2415-3060 (print), ISSN 2522-4972 (online)
  • 35 of 58
Up
УЖМБС 2020, 5(6): 241–246
https://doi.org/10.26693/jmbs05.06.241
Modeling in medicine

Study of the Stress-Strain State of the "Spine-Implant" System in Different Types of Tumor Lesions

Popov A. 1, Petrenko D. 2, Yaresko O. 1
Abstract

Lesions resulting from the oncological process disrupt the structural stability of the spine and lead to pathological fractures and compression of the spinal cord structures. Surgical interventions used for spinal neoplasms can be both palliative and radical. Any of these surgical procedures significantly changes the biomechanical conditions of the spine functioning, and the wrong choice of surgical tactics can lead to fatal errors. The purpose of the study was to investigate the stress-strain state of the spine and the "spine-implant" system in various types of tumor lesions before and after stabilization surgical interventions. Material and methods. The model was built in the SolidWorks software. The calculations based on the finite element method and the analysis of the results were carried out in the ANSYS Workbench program. In the course of the study, a comparison was made between the character of stress-strain state distribution in the intact model and in models where the following changes were modeled: lesion of the T12 vertebral body by a tumor process by 30% of its volume (model 1) and cement augmentation of the created defect (model 2), and also lesions of the vertebral body by 60% with concomitant local kyphosis L5 (model 3) and stabilization with a transpedicular construction T10-L2 (model 4). Results and discussion. Based on the results of the calculations, it was determined that the presence of a T12 vertebral body defect by up to 30% leads to an increase in the absolute values of stresses in the vertebral body and the posterior supporting complex, while cement augmentation leads to the restoration of stress values close to the intact spine. Consequently, the presence of a pathological lesion in the vertebral body, occupying up to 60% of its volume, leads to disturbances in the supporting function of not only the affected segment, but also the segments adjacent to it. Placement of a transpedicular implant and restoration of the support of the anterior column of the affected vertebra makes it possible to bring the state of load distribution of the affected area of the spine closer to normal values. Conclusion. The study of the stress-strain state of the "spine-implant" system in the presence of a pathological lesion occupying 30% of the volume of the vertebral body leads to a violation of the supporting function of the affected vertebra, and an increase in the defect to 60% of the volume of the vertebral body and the presence of local kyphotic deformity of the spine negatively affects the distribution stresses in the segments that are adjacent to it. The use of cement augmentation and transpedicular construction allows the support function of the spine to be restored in accordance with normal parameters of load distribution. Indications for the use of cement vertebroplasty is the presence of a defect up to 30% of the volume of the vertebral body. In the case of the volume increase of the vertebra defect up to 60% and the occurrence of kyphotic deformity, it is necessary to supplement the cement vertebroplasty with transpedicular fixation of the spine

Keywords: stress-strain state, tumor lesions, surgical intervention

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 299K

References
  1. Whyne CM. Biomechanics of metastatic disease in the vertebral column. Neurological Research. 2014; 35: 493-501.
  2. Schulte M, Schulththeiss M, Hartwing E, Wilke E-J. Vertebral body replacement with a bioglass-polyurethane composite in spine metastases – clinical, radiological and biomechanical results. European Spine Journal. 2000; 9: 437–444.
  3. Ben-Hatira F, Saidane K, Mrabet A. A finite element modeling of the human lumbar unit including the spinal cord. J Biomedical Science and Engineering. 2012; 5: 146-152. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbise.2012.53019
  4. Srinivas GR, Kumar MN, Deb A. Adjacent Disc Stress Following Floating Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Finite Element Study. Asian Spine J. 2017; 11(4): 538-547. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.4.538
  5. Zhanga Zh, Fogel GR, Liao Zh, Sun Y, Sun X, Weiqiang L. Biomechanical evaluation of four surgical scenarios of lumbar fusion with hyperlordotic interbody cage: A finite element study. Bio-Medical and Materials Engineering. 2018; 29: 485-497. https://doi.org/10.3233/BME-181004
  6. Tyndyk MA, Barron V, Mchugh PE, O’Mahoney D. Generation of a finite element model of the thoracolumbar spine. Acta of bioengineering and biomechanics. Wroclaw University of Technology. 2007; 9(1): 35-46.
  7. Cota Aroeira RM, de Melo Pertence AE, Kemmoku DK, Greco M. Three-dimensional geometric model of the middle segment of the thoracic spine based on graphical images for finite element analysis. Res Biomed Eng. 2017 June; 33(2): 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1590/2446-4740.08916
  8. Nakashima D, Kanchiku T, Nishida N, Ito S, Ohgi J, Suzuki H, et al. Finite element analysis of compression fractures at the thoracolumbar junction using models constructed from medical images. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine. 2018; 15: 3225-3230. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.5848
  9. Nishida N, Ohgi J, Jiang F, Ito S, Imajo Ya, Suzuki H, et al. Finite Element Method Analysis of Compression Fractures on Whole-Spine Models Including the Rib Cage. Hindawi Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2019; 2019(Article ID 8348631): 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8348631
  10. Kurowski PM. Engineering Analysis with SolidWorks Simulation 2012. SDC Publications; 2012. 475 p.
  11. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The Finite Element Method for Solid and Structural Mechanics. 6th edition. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005. 736 p.
  12. Petrenko DYe, Mezentsev AO, Yaresko OV. Kintsevo-elementna model hrudnoho ta poperekovoho viddiliv khrebta [Finite element model of the thoracic and lumbar spine]. Informatsiynyi byuleten NAMN Ukrainy. 2014; 37: 151-152. [Ukrainian]
  13. Kong WZ, Goel VK. Ability of the Finite Element Models to Predict Response of the Human Spine to Sinusoidal Vertical Vibration. Spine. 2003; 28(17): 1961-1967. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000083236.33361.C5
  14. Vidal-Lesso A, Ledesma-Orozco E, Daza-Benítez L, Lesso-Arroyo R. Mechanical Characterization of Femoral Cartilage Under Unicompartimental Osteoarthritis. Ingeniería Mecánica Tecnología y Desarrollo. 2014; 4(6): 239-246.
  15. Boccaccio A, Pappalettere C. Mechanobiology of Fracture Healing: Basic Principles and Applications in Orthodontics and Orthopaedics. In: Theoretical Biomechanics. 2011. p 21-48. https://doi.org/10.5772/19420
  16. Loskutov OA, Vasilchenko EV. Zhestkostnye i prochnostnye kharakteristiki razlichnykh marok kostnogo tsementa na osnove polimetilmetakrilata i ikh izmenenie so vremenem [Stiffness and strength characteristics of various brands of bone cement based on polymethyl methacrylate and their change over time]. Travma. 2014; 15(1): 114-117. [Russian]
  17. Mobbs RJ, Loganathan A, Yeung V, Rao PJ. Indications for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Orthopaedic Surgery. 2013; 5(3): 153-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12048
  18. Park WM, Kim YJ, Wang SB, Kim YH, Li GA. Investigation of lumbar spine biomechanics using global convergence optimization and constant loading path methods. Math Biosci Eng. 2020 Mar 31; 17(4): 2970-2983. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020168
  19. Han K, Rohlmann A, Yang S-J, Kim BS, Lim T-H. Spinal muscles can create compressive follower loads in the lumbar spine in a neutral standing posture. Med Eng Phys. 2011; 33(4): 472-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.11.014
  20. Kim K, Kim YH. Role of trunk muscles in generating follower load in the lumbar spine of neutral standing posture. J Biomech Eng. 2008 Aug; 130(4) :041005. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2907739
  21. Shirazi-Adl A, El-Rich M, Pop DG, Parnianpour M. Spinal muscle forces, internal loads and stability in standing under various postures and loads—application of kinematics-based algorithm. Eur Spine J. 2005; 14: 381-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0779-0