Stress analysis of interbody fusion––finite element modelling of intervertebral implant and vertebral body


      Objective. To investigate stresses in cage type interbody fusion systems during compressive loading.
      Design. The study uses finite element methods to investigate predicted stresses. Previously published experimental material properties are used as inputs to the numerical simulation.
      Background. Interbody spinal fusion procedures using cage style intervertebral implants often cause subsidence failure of the vertebral endplate, resulting in potential pain and mechanical instability of the fusion system.
      Methods. Finite element models were developed to simulate compressive load transfer between interbody implants and adjacent vertebral body. The vertebral body was modelled using separate finite element mesh regions for cancellous core and cortical shell, with the meshes tied together at the core/shell interface. Coulomb friction was implemented to model the contact between implants and vertebral endplate.
      Results. Simulation results predicted endplate stresses of approximately 12 times the nominal contact pressure due to differing deformation stiffnesses of the implant and endplate structures. Reduction of the cancellous core elastic modulus to simulate severely osteoporotic bone resulted in endplate stresses up to three times higher than the values for an intact cancellous core.
      Conclusions. In this study, finite element analysis was used to investigate the stresses in interbody fusion systems. Published vertebral loads corresponding to certain activities were shown to generate endplate stresses which approach and exceed the failure stress for cortical bone. Endplate stresses are strongly dependent on the modulus of the underlying cancellous core.Relevance
      Endplate subsidence failure can potentially occur at the corners of existing cage-type interbody implants under physiological compressive loads. Matching material properties between cortical endplate and implant does not guarantee optimal contact conditions, and overall bending stiffness should be assessed.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Belytschko T.
        • Kulak R.F.
        • Schultz A.B.
        Finite element stress analysis of an inter-vertebral disc.
        Journal of Biomechanics. 1974; 7: 277-285
        • Goh J.C.H.
        • Wong H.
        • Thambyah A.
        • Yu C.
        Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 35-40
        • Grant J.P.
        • Oxland T.R.
        • Dvorak M.F.
        Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates.
        Spine. 2001; 26: 889-896
        • Hollowell J.P.
        • Vollmer D.G.
        • Wilson C.R.
        • Pintar F.A.
        • Yoganandan N.
        Biomechanical analysis of thoracolumbar interbody contructs. How important is the endplate?.
        Spine. 1996; 21: 1032-1036
        • Jost B.
        • Cripton P.A.
        • Lunt T.
        • Oxland T.R.
        • Lippuner K.
        • Jaegar P.
        • Nolte L.P.
        Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density.
        European Spine Journal. 1998; 7: 132-141
        • Kim Y.
        Prediction of mechanical behaviors at interfaces between bone and two interbody cages of lumbar spine segments.
        Spine. 2001; 26: 1437-1442
        • Kuslich S.
        • Ulstrom C.
        • Michael C.J.
        The tissue origin of low back pain and sciatica: a report of pain response to tissue stimulation during operations on the lumbar spine using local anesthesia.
        Orthopedic Clinics of North America. 1991; 22: 181-187
        • Linde F.
        Elastic and viscoelastic properties of trabecular bone by a compression testing approach.
        Danish Medical Bulletin. 1994; 41: 119-138
        • McAfee P.C.
        Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine.
        The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, America. 1999; 81-A: 859-880
        • Mizrahi J.
        • Silve M.J.
        • Keaveny T.M.
        • Edwards W.T.
        • Hayes W.C.
        Finite-element stress analysis of the normal and osteoporotic lumbar vertebral body.
        Spine. 1993; 18: 2088-2096
      1. Nigg B.M. Herzog W.H. Biomechanics of the musculo-skeletal system. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester1994
        • Palm W.J.
        • Rosenberg W.S.
        • Keaveny A.M.
        Load transfer mechanisms in cylindrical interbody cage constructs.
        Spine. 2002; 27: 2101-2107
        • Pearcy M.J.
        • Evans J.H.
        • O’Brien J.P.
        The load bearing capacity of vertebral cancellous bone in interbody fusion of the lumbar spine.
        Engineering in Medicine. 1983; 12: 183-184
        • Pitzen T.R.
        • Matthis D.
        • Barbier D.D.
        • Steudel W.L.
        Initial stability of cervical spine fixation: predictive value of a finite element model (technical note).
        Journal of Neurosurgery. 2002; 97: 128-134
        • Steffen T.
        • Tsantrizos A.
        • Aebi M.
        Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 1077-1084
        • White A.A.
        • Panjabi M.M.
        Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine.
        second ed. J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia1990
        • Zander T.
        • Rohlmann A.
        • Klockner C.
        • Bergmann G.
        Comparison of the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine following mono- and bi-segmental stabilization.
        Clinical Biomechanics. 2002; 17: 439-445
        • Zander T.
        • Rohlmann A.
        • Klockner C.
        • Bergmann G.
        Effect of bone graft characteristics on the mechanical behavior of the lumbar spine.
        Journal of Biomechanics. 2002; 35: 491-497