| Literature DB >> 27664020 |
M M van Rijsbergen1, V M P Barthelemy1, A C T Vrancken1, S P M Crijns2, H-J Wilke3, W Wilson1, B van Rietbergen1, K Ito4.
Abstract
The two main load bearing tissues of the intervertebral disc are the nucleus pulposus and the annulus fibrosus. Both tissues are composed of the same basic components, but differ in their organization and relative amounts. With degeneration, the clear distinction between the two tissues disappears. The changes in biochemical content lead to changes in mechanical behaviour of the intervertebral disc. The aim of the current study was to investigate if well-documented moderate degeneration at the biochemical and fibre structure level leads to instability of the lumbar spine. By taking into account biochemical and ultrastructural changes to the extracellular matrix of degenerating discs, a set of constitutive material parameters were determined that described the individual tissue behaviour. These tissue biomechanical models were then used to simulate dynamic behaviour of the degenerated spinal motion segment, which showed instability in axial rotation, while a stabilizing effect in the other two principle bending directions. When a shear load was applied to the degenerated spinal motion segment, no sign of instability was found. This study found that reported changes to the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus matrix during moderate degeneration lead to a more stable spinal motion segment and that such biomechanical considerations should be incorporated into the general pathophysiological understanding of disc degeneration and how its progress could affect low back pain and its treatments thereof.Entities:
Keywords: Biochemical composition; Degeneration; Finite element analysis; Intervertebral disc; Spinal motion segment
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27664020 PMCID: PMC5350258 DOI: 10.1007/s10237-016-0835-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomech Model Mechanobiol ISSN: 1617-7940
Modified Pfirrmann grades for the five lumbar IVDs in each spinal segment. The IVDs selected for mechanical testing are printed in boldface
| Spinal level | Age, gender | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 87 | 77 | 72 | 87 | |
| L1–L2 | VII |
|
|
|
| L2–L3 | VIII |
| II |
|
| L3–L4 | VII |
|
|
|
| L4–L5 |
|
|
| VI |
| L5–S1 | VII | II | II |
|
Fig. 1Orientation and location of the test samples
Biochemical and compositional composition of generic grade III IVD
| Nucleus pulposus | Annulus fibrosus | |
|---|---|---|
| Water (% ww) | 76 | 69 |
| Collagen (%dw) | 30 | 78 |
| FCD (mEq/ml) | 23 | 19 |
| Proportionality (C) | – | 70:30 |
| Collagen fibre angle ( | – | 23 |
Constitutive material parameters for a healthy IVD and a grade III IVD (Pfirrmann et al. 2001)
| Fibre properties | Ground substance | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Healthy IVD | 38 | 1.62 | 9.88 | 1.44 | 8.2 | 780 | 1 | 1 | 0.9 | 1.3e−4 |
| Degen IVD | 15 | 3.6 | 11 | 1.7 | 8.8 | 1600 | 0.9 | 1 | 1.2 | 2.5e−4 |
| % Difference |
|
|
|
|
| −10 | – |
|
| |
Fig. 2Comparison of the fitted reaction forces/stresses to the experimental data for tensile test of annulus fibrosus (AF) tissue at 10 % (a) and 6 % strain (b) and confined compression tests of annulus tissue (c) and nucleus pulposus (NP) tissue (d). The dashed lines represent the experimental data, where the dashed-continuous line represents the mean value and the dashed line the standard deviation. The thick continuous line represents the numerical simulation
Model prediction for range of motion (RoM) for the three principle bending directions compared to in vitro experiments (Kettler et al. 2011) of comparable degeneration grade: ‘Literature RoM’. Numerical difference of the degenSMS model compared to hSMS model (Barthelemy et al. 2016) ‘degenSMS – hSMS Model difference’ as well as literature data (Kettler et al. 2011) ‘Literature difference’. A positive difference indicates a larger RoM for the degenSMS
| degenSMS Model RoM | Literature RoM | degenSMS – hSMS Model difference | Literature difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexion/extension |
|
|
|
|
| Axial rotation |
|
|
|
|
| Lateral bending |
|
|
|
|
NZ of degenSMS versus literature studies and stiffness of degenSMS versus hSMS
| Flexion/extension | Axial rotation | Lateral bending | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NZ ( | |||
| Simulation | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.9 |
| Kettler et al. ( | 1.8 ± 1 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 1.8 ± 1 |
| Oxland et al. ( | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 4.6 ± 0.8 |
| Stiffness (healthy/degen) (Nm/degree) | |||
| Simulation | 5.5/5.4 | 4.8/4.1 | 3.5/3.8 |
Fig. 3Outcome of the in vitro test in the three principle bending directions for the three specimens and the average of these experiments with corresponding standard deviation. Note that the results are for two-sided bending and rotation. The outcome of the generic degenSMS is also included in this figure