Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem

Obesity is one of the concerns that could cause low back pain. Excessive load on the spine could change the mechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine and affected on the pressure and stress that occurs in the intervertebral disc particularly at nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus. However, the biom...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Zahari, Siti Nurfaezah
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English English
Published:	2015
Subjects:	Q Science (General) QP Physiology
Online Access:	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/16855/1/Biomechanical%20Study%20Of%20Human%20Lumbar%20Spine%20With%20Total%20Disc%20Replacement%20Of%20Maverick%20Prothesis%20Using%20Fem.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/16855/2/Biomechanical%20study%20of%20human%20lumbar%20spine%20with%20total%20disc%20replacement%20of%20maverick%20prothesis%20using%20fem.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-utem-ep.16855
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
collection	UTeM Repository
language	English English
advisor	Abd. Latif, Mohd Juzaila
topic	Q Science (General) QP Physiology
spellingShingle	Q Science (General) QP Physiology Zahari, Siti Nurfaezah Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem
description	Obesity is one of the concerns that could cause low back pain. Excessive load on the spine could change the mechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine and affected on the pressure and stress that occurs in the intervertebral disc particularly at nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus. However, the biomechanical effects of body weight on the lumbar spine and implanted lumbar spine are yet to be fully understood. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanical effects of body weight on the lumbar spine as well as adjacent segments of the implanted lumbar spine. Three dimensional finite element model of the osseoligamentous lumbar spine and implanted lumbar spine models was developed and verified with previous studies. The finite element model was subjected to follower compression load of 500 N, 800 N and 1200 N to represent the load case of normal, overweight and obese with a combination of pure moments of 7.5 Nm in flexion and extension. Increasing weight shows significant effect on the kinematics of the lumbar spine for both finite element models. The excessive load on the lumbar spine increased the pressure and stress that occurs in the intervertebral disc, particularly at the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus. The nucleus pressure was higher in flexion and increased as the compressive load was increased. This phenomenon could contributes to the earliest stages of disc degeneration which occurs in the nucleus pulposus. However, increasing weight were more severe in extension as its results in increased the annulus stress, particularly at posterior intervertebral disc up to 17%. Besides, the increasing weight on the implanted lumbar spine also has the potential to alter the movement of the lumbar spine during flexion and extension motions. The presence of a higher weight applied on the implanted lumbar spine and rigidity of Maverick prosthesis at the operated segment of L4-L5 was suggested as a contributing factor to accelerate in changing the kinematics of the implanted lumbar spine. The changes in kinematics of the implanted lumbar spine gave significant effect on the nucleus pressure and annulus stress. Its results in increased the nucleus pressure up to 155% and 124% in annulus stress compared with the non-implanted lumbar spine which observed in the region of L3-L4 lumbar segment. The high stress on the annulus particularly at the posterior of the disc could accelerate annular tear at the disc rim. In conclusion, flexion and extension appears to have differing affects to disc structure. Whilst flexion increases the nucleus pressure, extension results in the increase in the annulus stress. Heavier individuals are expected to experience an increase in stress and pressure of the disc regardless of the position of the spine. Therefore, an increase in body weight of the lumbar spines changed the kinematics of the lumbar spine and causes an increase in the nucleus pressure and annulus stress. This may be a factor that can lead to early intervertebral disc damage particularly at disc rim. Besides, an increase in body weight of the implanted lumbar spine can also expedite the tendency of disc degeneration at adjacent segments and may require additional surgery.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.)
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Zahari, Siti Nurfaezah
author_facet	Zahari, Siti Nurfaezah
author_sort	Zahari, Siti Nurfaezah
title	Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem
title_short	Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem
title_full	Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem
title_fullStr	Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem
title_full_unstemmed	Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem
title_sort	biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem
granting_institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
granting_department	Faculty Of Mechanical Engineering
publishDate	2015
url	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/16855/1/Biomechanical%20Study%20Of%20Human%20Lumbar%20Spine%20With%20Total%20Disc%20Replacement%20Of%20Maverick%20Prothesis%20Using%20Fem.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/16855/2/Biomechanical%20study%20of%20human%20lumbar%20spine%20with%20total%20disc%20replacement%20of%20maverick%20prothesis%20using%20fem.pdf
_version_	1747833901223510016
spelling	my-utem-ep.168552022-04-20T11:09:11Z Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem 2015 Zahari, Siti Nurfaezah Q Science (General) QP Physiology Obesity is one of the concerns that could cause low back pain. Excessive load on the spine could change the mechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine and affected on the pressure and stress that occurs in the intervertebral disc particularly at nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus. However, the biomechanical effects of body weight on the lumbar spine and implanted lumbar spine are yet to be fully understood. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanical effects of body weight on the lumbar spine as well as adjacent segments of the implanted lumbar spine. Three dimensional finite element model of the osseoligamentous lumbar spine and implanted lumbar spine models was developed and verified with previous studies. The finite element model was subjected to follower compression load of 500 N, 800 N and 1200 N to represent the load case of normal, overweight and obese with a combination of pure moments of 7.5 Nm in flexion and extension. Increasing weight shows significant effect on the kinematics of the lumbar spine for both finite element models. The excessive load on the lumbar spine increased the pressure and stress that occurs in the intervertebral disc, particularly at the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus. The nucleus pressure was higher in flexion and increased as the compressive load was increased. This phenomenon could contributes to the earliest stages of disc degeneration which occurs in the nucleus pulposus. However, increasing weight were more severe in extension as its results in increased the annulus stress, particularly at posterior intervertebral disc up to 17%. Besides, the increasing weight on the implanted lumbar spine also has the potential to alter the movement of the lumbar spine during flexion and extension motions. The presence of a higher weight applied on the implanted lumbar spine and rigidity of Maverick prosthesis at the operated segment of L4-L5 was suggested as a contributing factor to accelerate in changing the kinematics of the implanted lumbar spine. The changes in kinematics of the implanted lumbar spine gave significant effect on the nucleus pressure and annulus stress. Its results in increased the nucleus pressure up to 155% and 124% in annulus stress compared with the non-implanted lumbar spine which observed in the region of L3-L4 lumbar segment. The high stress on the annulus particularly at the posterior of the disc could accelerate annular tear at the disc rim. In conclusion, flexion and extension appears to have differing affects to disc structure. Whilst flexion increases the nucleus pressure, extension results in the increase in the annulus stress. Heavier individuals are expected to experience an increase in stress and pressure of the disc regardless of the position of the spine. Therefore, an increase in body weight of the lumbar spines changed the kinematics of the lumbar spine and causes an increase in the nucleus pressure and annulus stress. This may be a factor that can lead to early intervertebral disc damage particularly at disc rim. Besides, an increase in body weight of the implanted lumbar spine can also expedite the tendency of disc degeneration at adjacent segments and may require additional surgery. 2015 Thesis http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/16855/ http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/16855/1/Biomechanical%20Study%20Of%20Human%20Lumbar%20Spine%20With%20Total%20Disc%20Replacement%20Of%20Maverick%20Prothesis%20Using%20Fem.pdf text en public http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/16855/2/Biomechanical%20study%20of%20human%20lumbar%20spine%20with%20total%20disc%20replacement%20of%20maverick%20prothesis%20using%20fem.pdf text en validuser https://plh.utem.edu.my/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=96162 mphil masters Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Faculty Of Mechanical Engineering Abd. Latif, Mohd Juzaila 1. Abdul-Kadir, M.R., Hansen, U, Klabunde, R., Lucas, D., & Amis, A., 2008. Finite Element Modelling of Primary Hip Stem Stability: The Effect of Interference Fit. Journal of Biomechancis, 4(3), pp. 587-594. 2. Adams, M.A., Bogduk, N., Burton, K. & Dolan, P., 2002. The Biomechanics of Back Pain, London: Churchill Livingstone. 3. Adams, M.A., 2004. Biomechanics of Back Pain. Acupuncture in Medicine, 22(4), pp.178- 188. 4. Adams, M.A., May, S., Freeman, B. J.C., Morrison, H.P. & Dolan, P., 2000. Effects of Backward Bending on Lumbar Intervertebral Discs: Relevance to Physical Therapy Treatments for Low Back Pain. Spine, 25(4), pp.431-437. 5. Adams, M.A., McNally, D.S. & Dolan, P., 1996. “Stress” Distribution inside Intervertebral Discs: The Effects of Age and Degeneration. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, British Volume, 78(6), pp.965-972. 6. Anandjiwala, J., Seo, J.Y., Ha, K.Y., Oh, I.S. & Shin, D.C., 2011. Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Instrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: A Prospective Cohort Study with a Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up. European Spine Journal, 20(11), pp.1951- 1960. 7. Bastian, L., Lange, U., Knop, C., Tusch, G. & Blauch, M., 2001. Evaluation of the Mobility of Adjacent Segments after Posterior Thoracolumbar Fixation: A Biomechanical Study. European Spine Journal, 10(4), pp.295-300. 8. Bergmark, A., 1989. Stability of the Lumbar Spine. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica Supplementum, 60(S230), pp.1-54. 9. Berkson, M.H., Nachemson, A. & Schultz, A.B., 1979. Mechanical Properties of Human Lumbar Spine Motion Segments - Part I: Responses in Flexion, Extension, Lateral Bending, and Torsion. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 101(1), pp.53-57. 10. Bogduk, N., 2005. Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine and Sacrum, Elsevier Churchill Livingstone. 11. Boss, O.L., Tomasi, S.O., Baurle, B., Sgier, F, & Hausmann, O.N., 2013. Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Correlation of Clinical Outcome and Radiological Parameters. Acta Neurochirurgica, 155(10), pp.1923-1930. 12. Brekelmans, W.A.M., Poort, H.W. & Slooff, T.J.J.H., 1972. A New Method to Analyze the Mechanical Behavior of Skeletal Parts. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 43(5), pp.301- 317. 13. Cano-Gomez, C., Rua, R.D.L., Garcia-Guerrero, G., Julia-Bueno, J. & Marante-Fuertes, J., 2008. Physiopathology of Lumbar Spine Degeneration and Pain. Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia, 52(1), pp.37-46. 14. Chen, C.S., Cheng, C.K., Liu, C.L. & Lo, W.H., 2001. Stress Analysis of the Disc Adjacent to Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Spine. Medical Engineering & Physics, 23(7), pp.483-491. 15. Chou, R., Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Casey, D., Cross Jr, T., Shekelle, P. & Owens, D.K., 2007. Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(7), pp.478-491. 16. Cinotti, G. & Postacchini, F., 1999. The biomechanics. In Lumbar Disc Herniation. Vienna: Springer Vienna, pp.81-93. 17. Costi, J.J., Stokes, I.A., Gardner-Morse, M., Laible, J.P., Scoffone, H.M. & Iatridis, J.C., 2007. Direct Measurement of Intervertebral Disc Maximum Shear Strain in Six Degrees of Freedom: Motions That Place Disc Tissue at Risk of Injury. Journal of Biomechanics, 40(11), pp.2457-2466. 18. Denoziere, G. & Ku, D.N., 2006. Biomechanical Comparison Between Fusion of Two Vertebrae and Implantation of an Artificial Intervertebral Disc. Journal of Biomechanics, 39(4), pp.766-775. 19. Djurasovic, M., Bratcher, K.R., Glassman, S.D., Dimar, J.R., Carreon, L.Y., 2008. The Effect of Obesity on Clinical Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion. Spine, 33(16), pp.1789- 1792. 20. Eberlein, R., Holzapfel, G.A. & Markus, F., 2004. Multi-Segment FEA of the Human Lumbar Spine including the Heterogeneity of the Annulus Fibrosus. Computational Mechanics, 34(2), pp.147-163. 21. Frymoyer, J.W. & Cats-Baril, W.L., 1991. An Overview of the Incidences and Costs of Low Back Pain. The Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 22(2), pp.263-271. 22. Fujiwara, A., Lim, T.H., An, H.S., Tanaka, N., Jeon, C.H., Andersson, G.B.J. & Haughton, V.M., 2000. The Effect of Disc Degeneration and Facet Joint Osteoarthritis on the Segmental Flexibility of the Lumbar Spine. Spine, 25(23), pp.3036-3044. 23. Galbusera, F., Schmidt, H., Neidlinger-Wilke, C., Gottschalk, A., & Wilke, H.J., 2000. The Mechanical Response of the Lumbar Spine to Different Combinations of Disc Degenerative Changes Investigated using Randomized Poroelastic Finite Element Models. European Spine Journal, 20(4), pp.563-571. 24. Guyer, R.D., Thongtrangan, I. & Ohnmeiss, D.D., 2012. Outcomes of CHARITE Lumbar Artificial Disk versus Fusion: 5-Year Data. Seminars in Spine Surgery, 24(1), pp.32-36. 25. Hall, S.J., 1991. Basic Biomechanics. In The Biomechanics of the Human Spine. Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 252-293. 26. Henninger, H.B., Reese, S.P., Anderson, A.E. & Weiss, J.A., 2010. Validation of Computational Models in Biomechanics. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 224(7), pp.801-812. 27. Heuer, F., Schmidt, H. & Wilke, H.J., 2008. Stepwise Reduction of Functional Spinal Structures Increase Disc Bulge and Surface Strains. Journal of Biomechanics, 41(9), pp.1953-1960. 28. Hitchon, P.W., Eichholz, K., Barry, C., Rubenbauer, P., Ingalhalikar, A., Nakamura, S. & Torner, J., 2005. Biomechanical Studies of an Artificial Disc Implant in the Human Cadaveric Spine. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine, 2(3), pp.339-343. 29. Huang, R.C., Tropiano, P., Marnay, T., Girardi, F.P., Lim, M.R. & Cammisa, F.P., 2006. Range of Motion and Adjacent Level Degeneration after Lumbar Total Disc Replacement. The Spine Journal, 6(3), pp.242-247. 30. Huec, J.C.L., Lafage, V., Bonnet, X., Lavaste, F., Josse, L., Liu, M. & Skalli, W., 2010. Validated Finite Element Analysis of the Maverick Total Disc Prosthesis. Journal Spinal Disorder Techniques, 23(4), pp.249-257. 31. Johnstone, B., Urban, J., Roberts, S. & Menage, J., 1992. The Fluid Content of the Human Intervertebral Disc: Comparison between Fluid Content and Swelling Pressure Profiles of Discs Removed at Surgery and those taken Postmortem. Spine, 17(4), pp.412-416. 32. Jones, A.C. & Wilcox, R.K., 2008. Finite Element Analysis of the Spine: Towards a Framework of Verification, Validation and Sensitivity Analysis. Medical Engineering & Physics, 30(10), pp.1287-1304. 33. Kanamori, M., Yasuda, T., Hori, T., Suzuki, K. & Kawaguchi, Y., 2012. Minimum 10- Year Follow-up Study of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Progressive Pattern of the Adjacent Disc Degeneration. Asian Spine Journal, 6(2), pp.105-114. 34. Kelly, B.P. & Bennett, C.R., 2013. Design and Validation of a Novel Cartesian Biomechanical Testing System with Coordinated 6 DOF Real-Time Load Control: Application to the Lumbar Spine (L1-S, L4-L5). Journal of Biomechanics, 46(11), pp.1948–1954. 35. Kim, H.J., Kang, K.T., Chang, B.S., Lee, C.L., Kim, J.W. & Yeom, J.S., 2014. 36. Biomechanical Analysis of Fusion Segment Rigidity Upon Stress at Both the Fusion and Adjacent Segments: A Comparison between Unilateral and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation. Yonsei Medical Journal, 55(5), pp.1386-1394. 37. Kim, K.T., Lee, S.H., Suk, K.S., Lee, J.H. & Jeong, B.O., 2010. Biomechanical Changes of the Lumbar Segment after Total Disc Replacement: Charite®, Prodisc® and Maverick® using Finite Element Model Study. Journal Korean Neurosurgical Society, 47(6), pp.446- 453. 38. Koes, B.W., Tulder, M.W. Van & Thomas, S., 2006. Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain. Clinical Reviews , 332(7555), pp.1430-1434. 39. Kumar, M.N., Jacquot, F. & Hall, H., 2000. Long-Term Follow-Up of Functional Outcomes and Radiographic Changes at Adjacent Levels Following Lumbar Spine Fusion for Degenerative Disc Disease. European Spine Journal, 10(4), pp.309-313. 40. Kurtz, S.M. & Edidin, A., 2006. Spine Technology Handbook, Burlington: Academic Press. 41. Kurutz, M. & Oroszvary, L., 2010. Finite Element Analysis of Weightbath Hydrotraction Treatment of Degenerated Lumbar Spine Segments in Elastic Phase. Journal of Biomechanics, 43(3), pp.433-441. 42. Lan, C.C., Kuo, C.S., Chen, C.H. & Hu, H.T., 2013. Finite Element Analysis of Biomechanical Behavior of Whole Thoraco-Lumbar Spine with Ligamentous Effect. The Changhua Journal of Medicine, 11(1), pp.26-41. 43. Larsen-Gordon, P., Wang, H. & Popkin, B.M., 2014. Overweight Dynamics in Chinese Children and Adults. Obesity Reviews, 15(S1), pp.37-48. 44. Leboeuf-Yde, C., 2000. Body Weight and Low Back Pain: A Systematic Literature Review of 56 Journal Articles Reporting on 65 Epidemiologic Studies. Spine, 25(2), pp.226-237. 45. Li, G., Wang, S., Passias, P., Xia, Q., Li, G. & Wood, K., 2009. Segmental In Vivo Vertebral Motion during Functional Human Lumbar Spine Activities. European Spine Journal, 18(7), pp.1013-1021. 46. Little, J.S. & Khalsa, P.S., 2006. Material Properties of the Human Lumbar Facet Joint Capsule. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 127(1), pp.15-24. 47. Marchi, L., Oliveira, L., Coutinho, E. & Pimenta, L., 2012. The Importance of the Anterior Longitudinal Ligament in Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty: 36-Month Follow-Up Experience in Extreme Lateral Total Disc Replacement. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 6(1), pp.18-23. 48. Markolf, K.L. & Morris, J.M., 1974. The Structural Components of the Intervertebral Disc: A Study of their Contributions to the Ability of the Disc to Withstand Compressive Forces. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 56(4), pp.675-687. 49. Marras, W.S., King, A.I. & Joynt, R.L., 1984. Measurements of Loads on the Lumbar Spine Under Isometric and Isokinetic Conditions. Spine, 9(2), pp.176-188. 50. Martin, K., Fontaine, K., Nicklas, B.J., Dennis, K.E., Goldberg, A.P. & Hochberg, M.C., 2001. Weight Loss and Exercise Walking Reduce Pain and Improve Physical Functioning in Overweight Post-Menopausal Women with Knee Osteoarthritis. Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 7(4), pp.219-223. 51. Meir, A.R., Freeman, B. J. C. & Fraser, R.D., 2013. Ten-Year Survival and Clinical Outcome of the Acroflex Lumbar Disc Replacement for the Treatment of Symptomatic Disc Degeneration. The Spine Journal, 13(1), pp.13-21. 52. Mellin, G., Harkapaa, K., Vanharanta, H. Hupli, M., Heinonen, R. & Jarvikoski, A., 1993. Outcome of A Multimodal Treatment including Intensive Physical Training of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain. Spine, 18(7), pp.825-829. 53. Michaela, G., Denise, H., Liebensteiner, M. & Michael, B.C., 2008. Footprint Mismatch in Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty. European Spine Journal, 17(11), pp.1470-1475. 54. Moramarco, V., Palamor, A.P.D., Pappalettere, C. & Doblare, M., 2010. An Accurate Validation of a Computational Model of a Human Lumbosacral Segment. Journal of Biomechanics, 43(2), pp.334-342. 55. Moumene, M. & Geisler, F.H., 2007. Comparison of Biomechanical Function at Ideal and Varied Surgical Placement for Two Lumbar Artificial Disc Implant Designs: Mobile-Core Versus Fixed-Core. Spine, 32(17), pp.1840-1851. 56. Nabhani, F. & Wake, M., 2002. Computer Modelling and Stress Analysis of the Lumbar Spine. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 127(1), pp.40-47. 57. Netter, F.H., 2006. Atlas of Human Anatomy, Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. 58. Noailly, J., Ambrosio, L., Tanner, K.E., Planell, J.A. & Lacroix, D., 2012. In Silico Evaluation of a New Composite Disc Substitute with a L3 – L5 Lumbar Spine Finite Element Model. European Spine Journal, 21(5), pp.S675-S687. 59. Nordin, M. & Frankel, V.H., 2001. Basic Biomechanics of the Musculoskeletal System, 3rd ed., Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 60. Osti, O.L., Roberts, V., Moore, R. & Fraser, R.D., 1992. Annular Tears and Disc Degeneration in the Lumbar Spine: A Post-Mortem Study of 135 Discs. Journal Bone Joint Surgery, British Volume, 75(5), pp.678-682. 61. Palepu, V., Kodigudla, M. & Goel, V.K., 2012. Biomechanics of Disc Degeneration. 62. Advances in Orthopedics, 2012, pp.1-17. 63. Panjabi, M.M., Oxland, T., Takata, K., Goel, V., Duranceau, J. & Krag, M., 1993. Articular Facets of the Human Spine Quantitative Three-Dimensional Anatomy. Spine, 18(10), pp.1298-1310. 64. Panjabi, M.M., Oxland, T.R., Yamamoto, I. & Crisco, J.J., 1994. Mechanical Behavior of the Human Lumbar and LumboSacral Spine as shown by Three-Dimensional Load- Displacement Curves Lumbosacral Behavior Spine of the Human Curves. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 76(3), pp.413-424. 65. Park, W.M., Kim, K. & Kim, Y.H., 2013. Effects of Degenerated Intervertebral Discs on Intersegmental Rotations, Intradiscal Pressures, and Facet Joint Forces of the Whole Lumbar Spine. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 43(9), pp.1234-1240. 66. Patwardhan, A.G., Havey, R.M., Meade, K.P., Lee, B. & Dunlap, B., 1999. A Follower 67. Load Increases the Load‐Carrying Capacity of the Lumbar Spine in Compression. Spine, 24(10), pp.1003-1009. 68. Patwardhan, A.G., Havey, R.M., Carandang, G., Simonds, J., Voronov, L.I., Ghanayem, A.J., Meade, K.P., Gavin, T.M. & Paxinos, O., 2003. Effect of Compressive Follower Preload on the Flexion-Extension Response of the Human Lumbar Spine. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 21(3), pp.540-546. 69. Piersol, G.A. & Dwight, T., 1907. Human anatomy: Including Structure and Development and Practical Consideration, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. 70. Porto, H.C.D. & Pechak, C.M., 2012. Biomechanical Effects of Obesity on Balance. 71. International Journal of Exercise Science, 5(4), pp.301-320. 72. Rainey, S., Blumenthal, S.L., Zigler, J.E., Guyer, R.D. & Ohnmeiss, D.D., 2012. Analysis of Adjacent Segment Reoperation after Lumbar Total Disc Replacement. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 6(1), pp.140-144. 73. Ranu, H.S., 1990. Measurement of Pressures in the Nucleus and within the Annulus of the Human Spinal Disc: Due to Extreme Loading. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 204(3), pp.141-146. 74. Renner, S.M., Natarajan, R.N., Patwardhan, A.G., Havey, R.M., Voronov, L.I., Guo, B.Y., Andersson, G.B.J. & An, H.S., 2007. Novel Model to Analyze the Effect of a Large Compressive Follower Pre-Load on Range of Motions in a Lumbar Spine. Journal of Biomechanics, 40(6), pp.1326-1332. 75. Rohlmann, A., Neller, S., Claes, L., Bergmann, G. & Wilke, H.J., 2001. Influence of a Follower Load on Intradiscal Pressure and Intersegmental Rotation of the Lumbar Spine. Spine, 26(24), pp.557-561. 76. Rohlmann, A., Zander, T., Schmidt, H., Wilke, H.J. & Bergmann, G., 2006. Analysis of the Influence of Disc Degeneration on the Mechanical Behaviour of a Lumbar Motion Segment using the Finite Element Method. Journal of Biomechanics, 39(13), pp.2484- 2490. 77. Rohlmann, A., Burra, N.K., Zander, T. & Bergmann, G., 2007. Comparison of the Effects of Bilateral Posterior Dynamic and Rigid Fixation Devices on the Loads in the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis. European Spine Journal, 16(8), pp.1223-1231. 78. Rohlmann, A., Mann, A., Zander, T. & Bergmann, G., 2009. Effect of an Artificial Disc on Lumbar Spine Biomechanics: A Probabilistic Finite Element Study. European Spine Journal, 18(1), pp.89-97. 79. Rohlmann, A., Zander, T., Roa, M. & Bergmann, G., 2009. Realistic Loading Conditions for Upper Body Bending. Journal of Biomechanics, 42(7), pp.884-890. 80. Rutherford, E., Tarplett, L., Davies, E., Harley, J. & King, L., 2007. Lumbar Spine Fusion and Stabilization: Hardware, Techniques, and Imaging Appearances. Radiographics, 27(6), pp.1737-1749. 81. Samandouras, G., 2010. The Neurosurgeon’s Handbook, New York: Oxford University Press. 82. Schmidt, H., Galbusera, F., Rohlmann, A., Zander, T. & Wilke, H.J., 2012. Effect of Multilevel Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty on Spine Kinematics and Facet Joint Loads in Flexion and Extension: A Finite Element Analysis. European Spine Journal, 21(5), pp.S663-S674. 83. Schmidt, H., Kettler, A., Heuer, F., Simon, U., Claes, L. & Wilke, H.J., 2007. Intradiscal Pressure, Shear Strain, and Fiber Strain in the Intervertebral Disc under Combined Loading. Spine, 32(7), pp.748-755. 84. Schmidt, H., Kettler, A., Rohlmann, A., Claes, L. & Wilke, H.J., 2007. The Risk of Disc Prolapses with Complex Loading in Different Degrees of Disc Degeneration: A Finite Element Analysis. Clinical Biomechanics, 22(9), pp.988-998. 85. Schulte, T.L., Hurschler, C., Haversath, M., Liljenqvist, U., Bullmann, V., Filler, T.J., Osada, N., Fallenberg, E.M. & Hackenberg, L.,2008. The Effect of Dynamic, Semi-Rigid Implants on the Range of Motion of Lumbar Motion Segments after Decompression. European Spine Journal, 17(8), pp.1057-1065. 86. Siepe, C.J., Heider, F., Wiechert, K., Hitzl, W., Ishak, B. & Mayer, M.H., 2014. Mid- to Long-Term Results of Total Lumbar Disc Replacement: A Prospective Analysis with 5- To 10-Year Follow-Up. The Spine Journal, 14(8), pp.1417-1431. 87. Silva, M.J., Wang, C., Keaveny, T.M. & Hayes, W.C., 1994. Direct and Computed Tomography Thickness Measurements of the Human, Lumbar Vertebral Shell and Endplate. Bone, 15(4), pp.409-414. 88. Silva-Correia, J., Correia S.I., Oliveira, M. & Reis, R.L., 2013. Tissue Engineering Strategies Applied in the Regeneration of the Human Intervertebral Disk. Biotechnology Advances, 31(8), pp.1514-1531. 89. Sjovold, S.G., Zhu, Q., Bowden, A., Larson, C.R., De Bakker, P.M., Villarraga, M.L., Ochoa, J.A., Rosler, D.M. & Peter, A., 2012. Biomechanical Evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System® (TFAS®): Loading as Compared to a Rigid Posterior Instrumentation System. European Spine Journal, 21(8), pp.1660-1673. 90. Skrzypiec, D.M., Bishop, N.E., Klein, A., Puschel, K., Morlock, M.M. & Huber, G., 2013. Estimation of Shear Load Sharing in Moderately Degenerated Human Lumbar Spine. Journal of Biomechanics, 46(4), pp.651-657. 91. Tarnita, D., Tarnita, D. & Bolcu, D., 2007. Orthopaedic Modular Implants Based on Shape Memory Alloys. In Prof. Reza Fazel: Biomedical Engineering - From Theory to Applications. InTech, pp. 432-438. 92. Tulder, M.V., Malmivaara, A., Esmail, R. & Koes, B., 2000. Exercise Therapy for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review within the Framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine, 25(21), pp.2784-2796. 93. Urban, J.P.G. & Roberts, S., 2003. Degeneration of the Intervertebral Disc. Arthritis Research and Therapy, 5(3), pp.120-130. 94. Vacas, F.G., Juanco, F.E., Blanca, A.P.D.L., Novoa, M.P. & Pozo, S.P., 2014. The Flexion-Extension Response of a Novel Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis: A Finite Element Study. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 73, pp.273-281. 95. Van Den Broek, P.R., Huyghe, J.M., & Ito, K., 2012. Biomechanical Behavior of a Biomimetic Artificial Intervetebral Disc. Spine, 37(6), pp.E367-E373. 96. Vismara, L., Menegoni, F., Zaina, F., Galli, M., Negrini, S. & Capodaglio, P., 2010. Effect of Obesity and Low Back Pain on Spinal Mobility: A Cross Sectional Study in Women. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 7(3), pp.1-8. 97. Vismara, L. Cimolin, V., Menegoni, F., Zaina, F., Galli, M., Negrini, S., Villa, V. & Capodaglio, P., 2012. Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment in Obese Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study. Manual Therapy, 17(5), pp.451-455. 98. Walpole, S.C., Prieto-Merino, D., Edwards, P., Cleland, J., Stevens, G. & Roberts, I., 2012. The Weight of Nations: An Estimation of Adult Human Biomass. Biomedcentral Public Health, 12(1), pp.439-444. 99. Wang, W., Zhang, H., Sadeghipour, K. & Baran, G., 2013. Effect of Posterolateral Disc Replacement on Kinematics and Stress Distribution in the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Study. Medical Engineering & Physics, 35(3), pp.357-364. 100. Weisse, B. , Aiyangar, A.K., Affolter, C.H., Gander, R., Terrasi, G.P. & Ploeg, H., 2012. Determination of the Translational and Rotational Stiffnesses of an L4-L5 Functional Spinal Unit using a Specimen-Specific Finite Element Model. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 13, pp.45-61. 101. White, A.A. & Panjabi, M.M., 1990. Clinical Biomechanis of the Spine , 2nd ed., Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 102. Wido, D.M., Kelley, B.P., Foley, K.T., Morrow, B., Wong, P., Sin, A., Bertagnoli, R. & Diangelo, D.J., 2009. Biomechanical Comparison of Lumbar Disc Prostheses: ProDisc-L , Charité , and Maverick Disc Implant Systems. In: 25th Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, Miami, Florida, USA (pp. 223-226), 15-17 May 2009. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 103. Wilke, H.J., Neef, P., Caimi, M., Hoogland, T. & Claes, L.E., 1999. New In Vivo Measurements of Pressures in the Intervertebral Disc in Daily Life. Spine, 24(8), pp.755- 762. 104. Zhao, F., Pollintine, P., Hole, B.D., Dolan, P. & Adams, M.A., 2005. Discogenic Origins of Spinal Instability. Spine, 30(23), pp.2621-2630. 105. Zirbel, S.A., Stolworthy, D.K., Howell, L.L. & Bowden, A.E., 2013. Intervertebral Disc Degeneration Alters Lumbar Spine Segmental Stiffness in All Modes of Loading under a Compressive Follower Load. The Spine Journal, 13(9), pp.1134-1147.

Biomechanical study of human lumbar spine with total disc replacement of maverick prothesis using fem

Similar Items