Development and validation of a viscoelastic finite element model of an L2/L3 motion segment

Wang, J.L.; Parnianpour, Mohammad; Shirazi-Adl, A.; Engin, Ali Erkan; Li, S.; Patwardhan, Avinash G.

doi:10.1016/s0167-8442(97)00032-3

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, all the cadaveric results previously cited come from multiple load dependent interactions between ligaments, intervertebral disc and facets (Adams et al, 1980;Tencer et al, 1982), and for this reason, they may be insufficient in order to describe the internal biomechanical behaviour of a whole segment. A clear illustration of this validation problem appears in the finite-element study of Wang et al (1997), where the simulations were compared to the a priori validated model of Shirazi-Adl et al (1986); while the ROM and the annulus fibre maximum stress were similar, the facet contact forces diverged greatly. It showed that the load path was different in both models and the number of variables introduced in the validation protocols was too small compared to the multiple interactions between the spinal components.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does the geometry affect the internal biomechanics of a lumbar spine bi-segment finite element model? Consequences on the validation process

Noailly

Wilke

Planell

et al. 2007

Journal of Biomechanics

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does the geometry affect the internal biomechanics of a lumbar spine bi-segment finite element model? Consequences on the validation process

Noailly

Wilke

Planell

et al. 2007

Journal of Biomechanics

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…30,[31][32]33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41 In general, these "inverse methods" assume a constitutive equation for the material, and estimate the material coefficients by simulating experimental force-deformation data with a computer model (review 41 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonlinear elastic material property estimation of lower extremity residual limb tissues

Tönük

Silverthorn

2003

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interface stresses between the residual limb and prosthetic socket have been studied to investigate prosthetic fit. Finite-element models of the residual limb-prosthetic socket interface facilitate investigation of the mechanical interface and may serve as a potential tool for future prosthetic socket design. However, the success of such residual limb models to date has been limited, in large part due to inadequate material formulations used to approximate the mechanical behavior of residual limb soft tissues. Nonlinear finite-element analysis was used to simulate force-displacement data obtained during in vivo rate-controlled (1, 5, and 10 mm/s) cyclic indentation of the residual limb soft tissues of seven individuals with transtibial amputation. The finite-element models facilitated determination of an appropriate set of nonlinear elastic material coefficients for bulk soft tissue at discrete clinically relevant test locations. Axisymmetric finite-element models of the residual limb bulk soft tissue in the vicinity of the test location, the socket wall and the indentor tip were developed incorporating contact analysis, large displacement, and large strain, and the James-Green-Simpson nonlinear elastic material formulation. Model dimensions were based on medical imaging studies of the residual limbs. The material coefficients were selected such that the normalized sum of square error (NSSE) between the experimental and finite-element model indentor tip reaction force was minimized. A total of 95% of the experimental data were simulated using the James-Green-Simpson material formulation with an NSSE NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author's final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page. Engineering, Vol 11, No. 1 (March 2003): 43-53. DOI. This article is © Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation2 less than 5%. The respective James-Green-Simpson material coefficients varied with subject, test location, and indentation rate. Therefore, these coefficients cannot be readily extrapolated to other sites or individuals, or to the same site and individual some time after testing. NomenclatureNonlinear elastic material coefficients; subscript indicates the order in strain invariant.Nonlinear elastic material coefficients in James-Green-Simpson material model; = order in first strain invariant 1 ; = order in second strain invariant 2 .Components of Green-Lagrange finite strain tensor.

show abstract

“…The traditional posterior correction is required to fuse to the stable vertebra if the Harrington instrumentation system is used. However, the third generation of posterior correction instrumentation has more orthopedic force than the first and second generations, especially with regard to the segmental pedicle screw technique, which can penetrate the anterior, middle or posterior column and is more capable than the hook-rod system in 3D correction, in terms of positioning the distal vertebral body close to the midline and making an unstable vertebral body enter a stable area intraoperatively [3], and involves fewer fusion segments. Several other groups [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] have treated thoracolumbar/ lumbar AIS with pedicle screw fixation, making the distal vertebral fusion become end vertebral or neutral vertebral fusion with good correction effects.…”

Section: Surgical Treatment Of Lenke 5 Aismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anterior correction with short segment fusion and better derotation effect has been the classic method for treating Lenke 5 AIS, but the third generation of posterior correction instrumentation has stronger orthopedic force compared with the first and second generations. The newly developed segmental pedicle screw technique with better derotation could have significant capability for positioning the distal vertebral body close to the midline, and making an unstable vertebral body enter stable areas [3], thereby achieving better correction results with fewer fusion segments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of finite element analysis of a Lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis case to assess possible surgical outcomes

Zhang

YongFu

et al. 2013

Computer Aided Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To use the finite element model of a Lenke 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patient to simulate four corrections (including anterior and posterior correction); to investigate the corrective effect of different surgical protocols; and to analyze the biomechanical stress and strain of the scoliotic spines. Methods: Four surgical strategies were designed and simulated with the model of scoliosis. All the main steps of each strategy, including derotation and compression, were simulated. The stress variation of the spine and the corrective effect were compared among the protocols for different surgical approaches and fusion levels. Results: With the four different surgical protocols, the coronary lumbar deformity was corrected to 22 , 23 , 26 and 26 , respectively, and a physiological sagittal configuration was maintained; however, higher stress was observed with solutions A1 (screw model implanted in the convex side of T12-L3) and A2 (screw model implanted in the convex side of T11-L4), while solution B2 (the posterior approach: T10-L5, fusion to SV) lost too many lumbar movement segments. A similar apical rotational correction was recorded (41.68 and 37.79 ) for solutions A2 and B1 (the posterior approach: T10-L4, fusion to LEV), which both instrumented the lower end vertebrae. Conclusions: The presented model could be used successfully to simulate correction procedures, including 90 derotation and compression, for the first time. The Lenke 5 AIS in this particular case was more rigid, and solution B1 was considered the ideal choice for treatment of this patient.

show abstract

Development and validation of a viscoelastic finite element model of an L2/L3 motion segment

Cited by 43 publications

References 40 publications

How does the geometry affect the internal biomechanics of a lumbar spine bi-segment finite element model? Consequences on the validation process

How does the geometry affect the internal biomechanics of a lumbar spine bi-segment finite element model? Consequences on the validation process

Nonlinear elastic material property estimation of lower extremity residual limb tissues

Use of finite element analysis of a Lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis case to assess possible surgical outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About