Biomedical Analysis of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) Cage for Lumbar Vertebrae
Objective: To develop the interbody cages implanted between the lumbar vertebrae by evaluating the strength of the bone model and the spinal cage. Materials and methods: In this study, finite element analysis (FEA) was applied using Mechanical Finder software (MF) to develop a 3D spine model lumba...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.uthm.edu.my/12387/1/J17847_2bb6b9dbd09feedc8bd464e64f9c59c0.pdf http://eprints.uthm.edu.my/12387/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Objective: To develop the interbody cages implanted between the lumbar vertebrae by evaluating the strength of
the bone model and the spinal cage. Materials and methods: In this study, finite element analysis (FEA) was applied
using Mechanical Finder software (MF) to develop a 3D spine model lumbar vertebrae of the fourth and fifth lumbar
vertebrae (L4 - L5) with various interbody cage designs, including honeycomb and rectilinear patterns with 50%,
70%, and 100% infill densities. The cage was made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and designed using Solidworks
software. The interbody cage was inserted between L4-L5, identified from CT scans utilizing MF. The model was analyzed in MF to assess the strength of the interbody cage, with the results compared to mechanical properties values
obtained by applying compression load to simulate spinal movements. Results: The results showed the best interbody
cage design was the honeycomb pattern with 70% infill density because the honeycomb structure produced the lowest equivalent and maximum principal stress. Discussion: The findings indicate that when the yield and ultimate tensile
strength of the material are higher than the equivalent and maximum principal stress, the risk of cage failure is lower.
This is due to it having demonstrated the highest structural capability in comparison to the other cage designs. Consequently, it is imperative to consider that PEEK-based cages with higher infill density exhibit relatively lower
stress production than those with lesser infill density. Conclusion: Choosing a mechanically compatible interbody
cage design is crucial for achieving biomechanical success in spine surgery |
|---|