Доступ предоставлен для: Guest
International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering

Выходит 6 номеров в год

ISSN Печать: 1543-1649

ISSN Онлайн: 1940-4352

The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years. 2017 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018) IF: 1.4 To calculate the five year Impact Factor, citations are counted in 2017 to the previous five years and divided by the source items published in the previous five years. 2017 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018) 5-Year IF: 1.3 The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. Immediacy Index: 2.2 The Eigenfactor score, developed by Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom at the University of Washington, is a rating of the total importance of a scientific journal. Journals are rated according to the number of incoming citations, with citations from highly ranked journals weighted to make a larger contribution to the eigenfactor than those from poorly ranked journals. Eigenfactor: 0.00034 The Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) is a single measurement of the field-normalized citation impact of journals in the Web of Science Core Collection across disciplines. The key words here are that the metric is normalized and cross-disciplinary. JCI: 0.46 SJR: 0.333 SNIP: 0.606 CiteScore™:: 3.1 H-Index: 31

Indexed in

OPTIMIZATION OF BONE GRAFT SHAPES OF S-TYPE CERVICAL CAGE THROUGH GENETIC ALGORITHM

Том 20, Выпуск 1, 2022, pp. 55-68
DOI: 10.1615/IntJMultCompEng.2021039717
Get accessGet access

Краткое описание

The fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae are the common sites of injury and disc degeneration. The interbody fusion failure was observed after fusion surgery. The postoperative effects are subsidence, migration, and nonfusion of the implants due to the improper cage design. Finite element analysis is the most efficient tool to simulate the surgical condition using computer-aided design models. In this study, we designed an S-type dynamic cage with a different geometry of bone graft. The objective of our study is to reduce the stresses in the dynamic cage, so the risk of subsidence is controlled and optimized for the best suitable shape. The different geometry of a bone graft designed for the dynamic cage are square, circular, rectangular, and elliptical. In this study, the bone grafts producing higher stress need to be selected for the cage design. A three-dimensional finite element model form C3-C6 was developed, and in the C4-C5 level, the S-type dynamic cage with the bone graft was virtually inserted. The S-type dynamic cage with the elliptical graft exhibited a lower stress in the cage and higher stress in the bone graft. The optimized cage with the graft reduces the risk of subsidence and increases osteointegration so the fusion can be achieved. Keeping this in mind, the genetic algorithm is used for optimizing the stress level and assigning a correct material and shape for the cage and bone graft for a particular patient.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА
  1. Agrillo, U. and Puzzilli, F., Anterior Cervical Fusion with Carbon Fiber Cage Containing Coralline Hydroxyapatite: Preliminary Observations in 45 Consecutive Cases of Soft-Disc Herniation, J. Neurosurg., vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 273-276,2002.

  2. Alvi, M.A. and Bydon, M., Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes between Expandable Cage and Non- expandable Cage among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, World Neurosurg, vol. 127, pp. 596-606.e1,2019.

  3. An, H.S. and Wilson, C., Prediction of Bone Graft Strength Using Dual-Energy Radiographic Absorptiometry, Spine, vol. 19, no. 20, pp. 2358-2362. 1994.

  4. Anderson, D.G. and Albert, T.J., Bone Grafting, Implants, and Plating Options for Anterior Cervical Fusions, Orthop. Clin. North Am., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 317-328,2002.

  5. Beaman, F.D. and Kransdorf, M.J., Bone Graft Materials and Synthetic Substitutes, Radiol. Clin. North Am., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 451-461,2006.

  6. Bhattacharya, S. and Biswas, J.K., Biomechanical Performance of a Modified Design of Dynamic Cervical Implant Compared to Conventional Ball and Socket Design of an Artificial Intervertebral Disc Implant: A Finite Element Study, J. Mech. Med. Biol., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1-15,2019.

  7. Biswas, J.K. and Majumdar, S., Effects of Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Fusion for Different Bone Conditions: A Finite Element Study, Int. J. Multiscale Comput. Eng., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 411-427,2019.

  8. Cabraja, M. and Woiciechowsky, C., Cages with Fixation Wings versus Cages Plus Plating for Cervical Reconstruction after Corpectomy Is There Any Difference?, Zentralbl. Neurochir., vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 59-63,2010a.

  9. Cabraja, M. and Woiciechowsky, C., Comparison between Anterior and Posterior Decompression with Instrumentation for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Sagittal Alignment and Clinical Outcome, Neurosurg. Focus, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1-6,2010b.

  10. Cabraja, M. and Kroppenstedt, S., Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Comparison of Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages, BMCMusculoskelet. Disord., vol. 13, pp. 1-9,2012.

  11. Chau, A.M. andMobbs, R.J., Bone Graft Substitutes in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, Eur. Spine J, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 449-464,2009.

  12. Chiandussi, G. and Varesio, F.E., Comparison of Multi-Objective Optimization Methodologies for Engineering Applications, Comput. Math. Appl., vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 912-942,2012.

  13. Chou, Y.C. and Chen, S.Y., Efficacy of Anterior Cervical Fusion: Comparison of Titanium Cages, Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cages and Autogenous Bone Grafts, J. Clin. Neurosci., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1240-1245,2008.

  14. Cloward, R.B., The Anterior Approach for Removal of Ruptured Cervical Disks, J. Neurosurg. Spine, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 496-508, 2007.

  15. Cutler, A.R. and Das, K., Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Cages with Femoral Cortical Bone Allograft as a Single-Piece Interbody Spacer in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, J. Neurosurg. Spine, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 534-539,2006.

  16. Datta, S. and Sultana, N., Imprecise Knowledge Based Design and Development of Titanium Alloys for Prosthetic Applications, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 53, pp. 350-365,2016.

  17. de Ruiter, L. and Verdonschot, N., The Mechanical Response of a Polyetheretherketone Femoral Knee Implant under a Deep Squatting Loading Condition, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., PartH: J. Eng. Med., vol. 231, no. 12, pp. 1204-1212,2017.

  18. Dvorak, M.F. and Wing, P.C., Effectiveness of Titanium Mesh Cylindrical Cages in Anterior Column Reconstruction after Thoracic and Lumbar Vertebral Body Resection, Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976), vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 902-908,2003.

  19. Fayazi, A.H. and Gelb, D.E., Preliminary Results of Staged Anterior Debridement and Reconstruction Using Titanium Mesh Cages in the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Vertebral Osteomyelitis, Spine J, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 388-395,2004.

  20. Fernandes, P.C. and Levy Melancia, J., Biomechanical Analysis of the Anterior Cervical Fusion, Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1337-1346,2012.

  21. Geetha, M. and Gogia, A.K., Ti Based Biomaterials, the Ultimate Choice for Orthopaedic Implants - A Review, Prog. Mater. Sci., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 397-425,2009.

  22. Ghosh, G. and Merdji, A., A Proposed Health Monitoring System Using Fuzzy Inference System, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. PartH. J. Eng. Med., vol. 234, no. 6, pp. 562-569,2020.

  23. Goz, V. and Brodke, D.S., Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry, Glob. Spine J., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 388-392,2019.

  24. Johansson, C.B. and Albrektsson, T., Bone-Tissue Formation and Integration of Titanium Implants: An Evaluation with Newly Developed Enzyme and Immunohistochemical Techniques, Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33-40,1999.

  25. Kandziora, F. and Mittlmeier, T., Biomechanical Comparison of Cervical Spine Interbody Fusion Cages, Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976), vol. 26, no. 17, pp. 1850-1857,2001.

  26. Konak, A. and Smith, A.E., Multi-Objective Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms: A Tutorial, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 91, no. 9, pp. 992-1007,2006.

  27. Li, X.F. and Song, X.X., Adjacent-Level Biomechanics after Single-Level Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion with Anchored Zero-Profile Spacer versus Cage-Plate Construct: A Finite Element Study, BMC Surg., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-11,2020.

  28. Ludwig, S.C. and Boden, S.D., Osteoinductive Bone Graft Substitutes for Spinal Fusion: A Basic Science Summary, Orthop. Clin. North Am., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 635-645,1999.

  29. Manickam, P.S. and Roy, S., The Biomechanical Study of Cervical Spine: A Finite Element Analysis, Int. J. Artif. Organs, 2021a.

  30. Manickam, P.S. and Shetty, G.M., Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel S-Type, Dynamic Zero-Profile Cage Design for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Variations in Bone Graft Shape: A Finite Element Analysis, World Neurosurg., vol. 154, pp. e199-e214,2021b.

  31. Moore, W.R. and Bain, G.I., Synthetic Bone Graft Substitutes, ANZ J. Surg, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 354-361,2001.

  32. Robinson, R.A., Walker, A.E., Ferlic, D.C., and Wiecking, D.K., The Results of Anterior Interbody Fusion of the Cervical Spine, J. Bone Jt. Surg., vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1569-1587,1962.

  33. Roy, S. and Datta, S., Design of Patient Specific Dental Implant Using FE Analysis and Computational Intelligence Techniques, Appl. Soft Comput. J, vol. 65, pp. 272-279,2018.

  34. Schmieder, K. and Harders, A., Subsidence of the Wing Titanium Cage after Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion: 2-Year Follow-Up Study, J. Neurosurg. Spine, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 447-453,2006.

  35. Shabbir, F. and Omenzetter, P., Particle Swarm Optimization with Sequential Niche Technique for Dynamic Finite Element Model Updating, Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 359-375,2015.

  36. Simmons, E.H. and Butt, W.P., Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. A Clinical and Biomechanical Study with Eight-Year Follow-Up, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 225-237,1969.

  37. Tan, J.S. and Oxland, T.R., Interbody Device Shape and Size Are Important to Strengthen the Vertebra-Implant Interface, Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976), vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 638-644,2005.

  38. Thome, C. and Zevgaridis, D., A Prospective Clinical Comparison of Rectangular Titanium Cages and Iliac Crest Autografts in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, Neurosurg. Rev., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 34-41,2004.

  39. Wang, J. and Ren, L., Biomechanical Comparison of Optimal Shapes for the Cervical Intervertebral Fusion Cage for C5-C6 Cervical Fusion Using the Anterior Cervical Plate and CAGE (ACPC) Fixation System: A Finite Element Analysis, Med. Sci. Monit., vol. 25, pp. 8379-8388,2019.

  40. Weiner, B.K. and Fraser, R.D., Spine Update Lumbar Interbody Cages, Spine, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 634-640,1998.

  41. Wu, T.K. and Liu, H., Biomechanics Following Skip-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Skip-Level Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Finite Element-Based Study, BMC Musculoskelet. Disord., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-9,2019.

  42. Zdeblick, T.A. and Phillips, F.M., Interbody Cage Devices, Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976), vol. 28, no. 15 Suppl., pp. 2-7, 2003.

  43. Zhang, Q.H. andNg,H.W., Development and Validation of aC0-C7 FE Complex for Biomechanical Study, J. Biomech. Eng., vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 729-735,2005.

  44. Zhang, Q.H. and Lee, V.S., Finite Element Analysis of Moment-Rotation Relationships for Human Cervical Spine, J. Biomech., vol. 39, no. 1,pp. 189-193,2006.

  45. Zhong, Z.C. and Yu, C.H., Finite Element Analysis of the Lumbar Spine with a New Cage Using a Topology Optimization Method, Med. Eng. Phys, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 90-98,2006.

ЦИТИРОВАНО В
  1. Manickam Pechimuthu Susai, S. Balamurugan, Roy Sandipan, Recent Advancements in Design and Material Perspective of the Implants in the Biomechanics of the Cervical Spine, in Advances in Computational Approaches in Biomechanics, 2022. Crossref

Портал Begell Электронная Бибилиотека e-Книги Журналы Справочники и Сборники статей Коллекции Цены и условия подписки Begell House Контакты Language English 中文 Русский Português German French Spain