A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The influence of different magnitudes and methods of applying preload on fusion and disc replacement constructs in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

In 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 150 N pressure preload (PP) and 150 and 400 N 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2011.645226DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lumbar spine
16
preload application
12
biomechanical behaviour
12
applying preload
8
disc replacement
8
finite element
8
element analysis
8
spine preload
8
application methods
8
behaviour lumbar
8

Similar Publications