Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZhong, Zheng-Chengen_US
dc.contributor.authorHung, Chinghuaen_US
dc.contributor.authorLin, Hung-Mingen_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Ying-Huien_US
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Chang-Hungen_US
dc.contributor.authorChen, Chen-Shengen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-08T15:33:05Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-08T15:33:05Z-
dc.date.issued2013-09-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn1025-5842en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2011.645226en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/23037-
dc.description.abstractIn a finite element (FE) analysis of the lumbar spine, different preload application methods that are used in biomechanical studies may yield diverging results. To investigate how the biomechanical behaviour of a spinal implant is affected by the method of applying the preload, hybrid-controlled FE analysis was used to evaluate the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine under different preload application methods. The FE models of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and artificial disc replacement (ADR) were tested under three different loading conditions: a 150N pressure preload (PP) and 150 and 400N follower loads (FLs). This study analysed the resulting range of motion (ROM), facet contact force (FCF), inlay contact pressure (ICP) and stress distribution of adjacent discs. The FE results indicated that the ROM of both surgical constructs was related to the preload application method and magnitude; differences in the ROM were within 7% for the ALIF model and 32% for the ADR model. Following the application of the FL and after increasing the FL magnitude, the FCF of the ADR model gradually increased, reaching 45% at the implanted level in torsion. The maximum ICP gradually decreased by 34.1% in torsion and 28.4% in lateral bending. This study concluded that the preload magnitude and application method affect the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine. For the ADR, remarkable alteration was observed while increasing the FL magnitude, particularly in the ROM, FCF and ICP. However, for the ALIF, PP and FL methods had no remarkable alteration in terms of ROM and adjacent disc stress.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectlumbar spineen_US
dc.subjectpreloaden_US
dc.subjectfollower loaden_US
dc.subjectfinite element methoden_US
dc.subjectspinal fusionen_US
dc.subjecttotal disc replacementen_US
dc.titleThe influence of different magnitudes and methods of applying preload on fusion and disc replacement constructs in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/10255842.2011.645226en_US
dc.identifier.journalCOMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERINGen_US
dc.citation.volume16en_US
dc.citation.issue9en_US
dc.citation.spage943en_US
dc.citation.epage953en_US
dc.contributor.department機械工程學系zh_TW
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Mechanical Engineeringen_US
dc.identifier.wosnumberWOS:000324612300004-
dc.citation.woscount0-
Appears in Collections:Articles


Files in This Item:

  1. 000324612300004.pdf

If it is a zip file, please download the file and unzip it, then open index.html in a browser to view the full text content.