Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Static study and numerical simulation of the influence of cement distribution in the upper and lower adjacent vertebrae on sandwich vertebrae in osteoporotic patients: Finite element analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Static study and numerical simulation of the influence of cement distribution in the upper and lower adjacent vertebrae on sandwich vertebrae in osteoporotic patients: Finite element analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Static study and numerical simulation of the influence of cement distribution in the upper and lower adjacent vertebrae on sandwich vertebrae in osteoporotic patients: Finite element analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Static study and numerical simulation of the influence of cement distribution in the upper and lower adjacent vertebrae on sandwich vertebrae in osteoporotic patients: Finite element analysis
2024
Overview
Objective We analyzed the influence of the location of the upper and lower cement on the sandwich vertebrae (SV) by computer finite element analysis. Materials and Methods A finite element model of the spinal segment of T11‐L1 was constructed and 6 mL of cement was built into T11 and L1 simultaneously. According to the various distributions of bone cement at T11 and L1, the following four groups were formed: (i) Group B‐B: bilateral bone cement reinforcement in both T11 and L1 vertebral bodies; (ii) Group L‐B: left unilateral reinforcement in T11 and bilateral reinforcement in L1; (iii) Group L‐R: unilateral cement reinforcement in both T11 and L1 (cross); (iv) Group L‐L: unilateral cement reinforcement in both T11 and L1 (ipsilateral side). The maximum von Mises stress (VMS) and maximum displacement of the SV and intervertebral discs were compared and analyzed. Results The maximum VMS of T12 was in the order of size: group B‐B < L‐B < L‐R < L‐L. Group B‐B showed the lowest maximum VMS values for T12: 19.13, 18.86, 25.17, 25.01, 19.24, and 20.08 MPa in six directions of load flexion, extension, left and right lateral bending, and left and right rotation, respectively, while group L‐L was the largest VMS in each group, with the maximum VMS in six directions of 21.55, 21.54, 30.17, 28.33, 19.88, and 25.27 MPa, respectively. Conclusion Compared with the uneven distribution of bone cement in the upper and lower adjacent vertebrae (ULAV), the uniform distribution of bone cement in the ULAV reduced and uniformed the stress load on the SV and intervertebral disc. Theoretically, it can lead to the lowest incidence of sandwich vertebral fracture and the slowest rate of intervertebral disc degeneration. T11‐L1 finite element model. (A) Front view of the T11‐L1 model, (B) left view of the T11‐L1 model, and (C) back view of the T11‐L1 model.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,Wiley
