For lumbosacral nonlinear analysis, the characteristics and differences between the load- and range-of-motion (ROM)-controlled methods (LCM and RCM) were compared using the numerical approach.This study aimed to discuss the LCM and RCM problems inherent in the method assumption and calculation procedure. A displacement-controlled method (DCM) based on the nodal movement at the lumbosacral top was proposed to offer a more efficient and equivalent comparison between the evaluated models.Both LCM and RCM have been extensively used to evaluate the biomechanical performance of lumbosacral implants. The LCM models were subject to the same loads as the intact model. The ROMs of the RCM models were controlled in the same way by iteratively adjusting some of the applied loads. However, the different strategies for adjusting lumbar loads might affect the predicted results and the execution might be inefficient. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the kinematic, mechanical, and computational comparisons between the 2 methods have still not been extensively investigated.An intact lumbosacral model was developed and validated with the cadaveric and numerical data from the literature studies. The intact model was then modified as a degenerative model, in which the moderately dehydrated L4-L5 segment was instrumented with transpedicular fixation. Lumbosacral flexion was simulated by ligament interconnection, muscular contraction, and weight compression. One LCM, 3 RCM, and 1 DCM models were developed to evaluate their effects on biomechanical results and the computational efficiency of the lumbosacral nonlinear analysis.Both solution feasibility and calculation time were closely related to the loading sequence that was defined as the time curves of the load-incremental control. The calculation of the RCM models was the most time-consuming. The calculation time of the DCM model was about 17 times faster than that of the RCM counterparts. Apart from the LCM model, the total ROM of the other models could be consistently controlled with the same value as that of the intact model. The intersegmental ROMs of all models were quite comparable. However, the LCM model predicted the least value of the screw stress and averaged 15.6% and 19.9% less than the RCM and DCM models. In general, the computational efficiency between the models was the most different, followed by the mechanical stress; the kinematic results were the most comparable.The superiority of the computational efficiency of the DCM compared with its counterparts makes it the improved strategy for executing lumbosacral nonlinear analysis.
In Brief Study Design. The biomechanical effects of disc degeneration and hybrid fixation on the transition and adjacent segments were evaluated using a numerical approach. Objective. This study aimed to evaluate the rigidity-rising effects of the dehydrated disc and bridged fixator on the kinematic and mechanical redistribution of the transition and adjacent segments. Summary of Background Data. After static fixation, a dynamic fixator can be used to preserve motion and share loads for the transition segments. However, the hybrid use of both static and dynamic fixators and its effects on the biomechanical behavior of the transition and adjacent segments were not investigated extensively. Methods. A nonlinear and osseoligamentous lumbar model from L1 vertebra to S1 vertebrae was developed. Ligament interconnection, muscular contraction, and weight compression were all used to simulate lumbar flexion. The static fixator was instrumented at the degenerative L4–L5 segment and the dynamic fixators (Dynesys system) with different stiffness were subsequently applied to the degenerative or healthy L3–L4 segment. A healthy lumbar model was used as a reference point for further comparison and evaluation. The predicted results were validated with the cadaveric and numerical values of the literature studies. Among the 21 models, the junctional problem at the adjacent (L2/L3 and L5/S1) discs as well as the motion preservation and stress distribution at the transition (L3/L4) disc were compared. Results. Static fixation and the degenerative disc deteriorated the junctional problem at adjacent segments. On average, the hybrid fixation of the original Dynesys cord constrained the range of motion (ROM) by 65%. Furthermore, it shared 43% of the stress on the transition disc. However, this resulted in the adjacent discs increasing about 50% ROM and 40% stress. The term "trade-off stiffness" was used to express the concept that the decreased stiffness of the original cord could balance the junctional problem, motion preservation, and load protection of the transition and adjacent segments. The trade-off stiffness of the degenerative transition disc was higher than that of the healthy disc. Compared with the original design, the increased ROM and stress of the adjacent segments can be reduced by about 43% using the trade-off stiffness. Conclusion. The use of the hybrid fixator should involve a certain trade-off between the protection of the transition segment and the deterioration of the adjacent segments. This trade-off stiffness, which largely depends on both fixator design and disc degeneration, provides the improved rigidity and flexibility of the transition and adjacent segments. The use of the hybrid fixator should involve a certain trade-off between the protection of the transition segment and the deterioration of the adjacent segments. This trade-off stiffness, which largely depends on both fixator design and disc degeneration, provides the improved rigidity and flexibility of the transition and adjacent segments.
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(60)'/%3e%3ccircle r='17' fill='%23000095'/%3e%3ccircle r='15' fill='%23fff'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)