Porous interbody fusion cage design via topology optimization and biomechanical performance analysis

References

• Abdulkarim JA, Dhingsa R, Finlay DB. 2003. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine: frequency of degenerative changes in the intervertebral disc with relation to age. Clin Radiol. 58(12):980–984.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blais MB, Rider SM, Sturgeon DJ, Blucher J, Zampini JM, Kang JD, Schoenfeld AJ. 2017. Establishing objective volume-outcome measures for anterior and posterior cervical spine fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 161:65–69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Broekema A, Groen R, Tegzess E, Reneman MF, Kuijlen J. 2021. Anterior or posterior approach in the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy; neurosurgeons' preference in the Netherlands. Interdiscipl Neurosurg. 23:100930.
   Google Scholar
• Bružauskaitė I, Bironaitė D, Bagdonas E, Bernotienė E. 2016. Scaffolds and cells for tissue regeneration: different scaffold pore sizes-different cell effects. Cytotechnology. 68(3):355–369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao SN, Bin S. 2018. Establishment and significance of three-dimensional finite element model of C3-C7 in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Shan Dong Yi Yao. 58(32):5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Chuah HG, Rahim IA, Yusof MI. 2010. Topology optimisation of spinal interbody cage for reducing stress shielding effect. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 13(3):319–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das K, Couldwell WT, Sava G, Taddonio RF. 2001. Use of cylindrical titanium mesh and locking plates in anterior cervical fusion. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 94(1 Suppl):174–178.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dean CL, Gabriel JP, Cassinelli EH, Bolesta MJ, Bohlman HH. 2009. Degenerative spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine: analysis of 58 patients treated with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine J. 9(6):439–446.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elias CN, Fernandes DJ, De Souza FM, Monteiro EDS, De Biasi RS. 2019. Mechanical and clinical properties of titanium and titanium-based alloys (Ti G2, TiG4 cold worked nanostructured and Ti G5) for biomedical applications. J Mater Res Technol. 8(1):1060–1069.
   Google Scholar
• Finn MA, Brodke DS, Daubs M, Patel A, Bachus KN. 2009. Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 18(10):1520–1527.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guo LX, Yin JY. 2019. Finite element analysis and design of an interspinous device using topology optimization. Med Biol Eng Comput. 57(1):89–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker RJ. 2002. Threaded cages for degenerative cervical disease. Clin Orthop Relat R. 394(1):39–46.
   Google Scholar
• Hernandez JL, Woodrow KA. 2022. Medical applications of porous biomaterials: features of porosity and tissue-specific implications for biocompatibility. Adv Healthcare Mater. 11(9):2102087.
   Google Scholar
• Huang H, Liu J, Wang L, Fan Y. 2021. A critical review on the biomechanical study of cervical interbody fusion cage. Med Novel Technol Dev. 11:100070.
   Google Scholar
• Hua W, Zhi J, Ke W, Wang B, Yang S, Li L, Yang C. 2020a. Adjacent segment biomechanical changes after one- or two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using either a zero-profile device or cage plus plate: a finite element analysis. Comput Biol Med. 120:103760.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hua W, Zhi J, Wang B, Ke W, Sun W, Yang S, Li L, Yang C. 2020b. Biomechanical evaluation of adjacent segment degeneration after one- or two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 189(6):105352.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kang KT, Chun HJ, Kim HJ, Yeom JS, Lee KI. 2012. Finite element analysis of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages for reducing stress shielding effects: comparison of the cfrp cage and titanium cage. Compos Res. 25(4):98–104.
   Google Scholar
• Kurtz SM, Devine JN. 2007. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 28(32):4845–4869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SH, Im YJ, Kim KT, Kim YH, Park WM, Kim K. 2011. Comparison of cervical spine biomechanics after fixed- and mobile-core artificial disc replacement: a finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 36(9):700–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Q, Mo Z, Fan Y. 2016. Biomechanical comparison of cervical arthroplasty with and without posterior longitudinal ligament resection: a finite element study. J Med Imaging Health Inf. 6(7):1559–1565.
   Google Scholar
• Lin CY, Hsiao CC, Chen PQ, Hollister SJ. 2004. Interbody fusion cage design using integrated global layout and local microstructure topology optimization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 29(16):1747–1754.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lv Y, Wang B, Liu G, Tang Y, Lu E, Xie K, Lan C, Liu J, Qin Z, Wang L. 2021. Metal material, properties and design methods of porous biomedical scaffolds for additive manufacturing: a review. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 9:641130.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mo Z, Zhao Y, Du C, Sun Y, Zhang M, Fan Y. 2015. Does location of rotation center in artificial disc affect cervical biomechanics? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 40(8):E469–475.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Assem Y, Pelletier M, Walsh WR. 2016. Combination Ti/PEEK ALIF cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: early clinical and radiological results. J Clin Neurosci. 34:94–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moussa A, Tanzer M, Pasini D. 2018. Cervical fusion cage computationally optimized with porous architected Titanium for minimized subsidence. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 85:134–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palm WJ, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM. 2002. Load transfer mechanisms in cylindrical interbody cage constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 27(19):2101–2107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pan CT, Lin CH, Huang YK, Jang JSC, Lin HK, Kuo CN, Lin DY, Huang JC. 2021. Design of customize interbody fusion cages of Ti64ELI with gradient porosity by selective laser melting process. Micromachines. 12(3):307–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A, Oda T, Cholewicki J, Nibu K, Shin E. 2001. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 26(24):2692–2700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson RA, Smith GW. 2010. Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. SAS J. 4(1):34–35.
   Google Scholar
• Rubert M, Vetsch JR, Lehtoviita I, Sommer M, AndréR S, Müller R, Hofmann S. 2020. Scaffold pore geometry influences bone-like tissue formation in dynamic cell culture conditions. BioRxiv.DOI:10.1101/2020.04.24.060525
   Google Scholar
• Silvestros P, Preatoni E, Gill HS, Gheduzzi S, Hernandez BA, Holsgrove TP, Cazzola D. 2019. Musculoskeletal modelling of the human cervical spine for the investigation of injury mechanisms during axial impacts. PLoS ONE. 14(5):e0216663–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Song K, Wang ZH, Lan J, Ma SH. 2021. Porous structure design and mechanical behavior analysis based on TPMS for customized root analogue implant. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 115:104222.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sun J, Wang QA, Cai DZ, Gu WX, Ma YM, Su Y, Wei YY, Yuan F. 2021. A lattice topology optimization of cervical interbody fusion cage and finite element comparison with ZK60 and Ti-6Al-4V cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 22(1):390–404.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tang QH, Mo ZJ, Yao J, Li Q, Du CF, Wang LZ, Fan YB. 2014. Biomechanical analysis of different Prodisc-C arthroplasty design parameters after implanted: a numerical sensitivity study based on finite element method. J Biomed Eng. 31(6):1265–1271.
   Google Scholar
• Taniguchi N, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Sasaki K, Otsuki B, Nakamura T, Matsushita T, Kokubo T, Matsuda S. 2016. Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 59:690–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thavasiappan K, Venkatesan MS, Ariffuddeen M, Ponnuchamy O, Ravichandran N, Murugesan G. 2020. Design, analysis, fabrication and testing of pc porous scaffolds using rapid prototyping in clinical applications. Biomedicine. 39(2):339–345.
   Google Scholar
• Tovar A, Gano SE, Mason JJ, Renaud JE. 2005. Optimum design of an interbody implant for lumbar spine fixation. Adv Eng Software. 36(9):634–642.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk M, Smit TH, Sugihara S, Burger EH, Wuisman PI. 2002. The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion: an in vivo model using poly(l-lactic Acid) and titanium cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 27(7):682–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Arabnejad KS, Tanzer M, Pasini D, Arabnejad S, Tanzer M, Pasini D. 2018b. Hip implant design with three-dimensional porous architecture of optimized graded density. J Mech Des. 140:111406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang LZ, Ding XL, Feng WT, Gao YM, Zhao SD, Fan YB. 2021. Biomechanical study on implantable and interventional medical devices. Acta Mech Sin. 37(6):875–894.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Wang C, Li C, Qin Y, Zhong L, Chen B, Li Z, Liu H, Chang F, Wang J. 2017. Analysis of factors influencing bone ingrowth into three-dimensional printed porous metal scaffolds: a review. J Alloys Compd. 717:271–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang HW, Wan Y, Li QH, Xia Y, Liu XY, Liu ZQ, Li XG. 2020. Porous fusion cage design via integrated global-local topology optimization and biomechanical analysis of performance. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 112:103982.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang C, Xu DL, Li SJ, Yi C, Zhang XL, He Y, Yu DS. 2020. Effect of pore size on the physicochemical properties and osteogenesis of ti6al4v porous scaffolds with bionic structure. ACS Omega. 5(44):28684–28692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Womack W, Woldtvedt D, Puttlitz CM. 2008. Lower cervical spine facet cartilage thickness mapping. Osteoarthr Cartilage. 16(9):1018–1023.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang Y, Attarilar S, Wang L, Lu W, Yang J, Fu Y. 2021. A review on design and mechanical properties of additively manufactured niti implants for orthopedic applications. Int J Bioprint. 7(2):340–368.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang SJ, Zarei V, Winkelstein BA, Barocas VH. 2018. Multiscale mechanics of the cervical facet capsular ligament, with particular emphasis on anomalous fiber realignment prior to tissue failure. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 17(1):133–145.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang J, Zhang X, Chen Y, Feng W, Chen X. 2021. Novel design and finite element analysis of diamond-like porous implants with low stiffness. Materials. 14(22):6918.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhong ZC, Wei SH, Wang JP, Feng CK, Chen CS, Yu CH. 2006. Finite element analysis of the lumbar spine with a new cage using a topology optimization method. Med Eng Phys. 28(1):90–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou EZ, Huang HW, Zhao YB, Wang LZ, Fan YB. 2022. The effects of titanium mesh cage size on the biomechanical responses of cervical spine after anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a finite element study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 91:105547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu LY, Li L, Li ZA, Shi JP, Tang WL, Yang JQ, Jiang Q. 2019. Design and biomechanical characteristics of porous meniscal implant structures using triply periodic minimal surfaces. J Transl Med. 17(1):89–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar