Development and Biomechanical Evaluation of a 3D Printed Analogue of the Human Lumbar Spine

Overview

Journal 3D Print Med

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2025 Jan 22

PMID 39843876

Authors

Siril Teja Dukkipati

Mark Driscoll

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: There exists a need for validated lumbar spine models in spine biomechanics research. Although cadaveric testing is the current gold standard for spinal implant development, it poses significant issues related to reliability and repeatability due to the wide variability in cadaveric physiologies. Moreover, there are increasing ethical concerns with human dissection practices. Analogue models can act as cost saving alternatives to human tissue with better repeatability. The current study proposes a new methodology of spinal biomechanics testing using 3D printable surrogates and characterized its multi-dimensional stiffness in displacement-controlled loading scenarios.

Methods: The model consisted of L1 to S1 vertebrae, intervertebral discs (IVD), intertransverse, interspinous, anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments. The vertebrae and the IVDs were derived from an open-source 3D MRI anatomography database, while the ligaments were modeled based on literature incorporating mounting points on the spinous and transverse processes. Stereolithography 3D printing along with a combination of stiff and soft photopolymer resins were used to manufacture the vertebrae and the soft tissues in the model. Thereafter, displacement-controlled pure moments were applied in the range of ± 15° at 0.5°/sec in all bending modes using a torsion testing machine and a custom pure bending jig. Model rotation and resisting moment under loading were recorded to quantify the rotational stiffness and hysteresis in the model.

Results: The model reached a maximum of 5.66Nm and 3.53Nm at 15° flexion-extension, 3.84Nm and 3.93Nm at 15° right and left lateral bending, and 2.45Nm and 2.59Nm at 15° right and left axial rotation respectively. Model RMS error against ex vivo human response was estimated to be 1.57°, 1.64°, 0.82° in flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation respectively. Bilateral symmetry in model stiffness was observed in lateral bending and axial rotation directions.

Conclusions: This study presents a reproducible 3D printable L1-S1 lumbar spine and validated it in all three orthogonal bending modes in the range of ± 15° against ex vivo and in silico data. The 3D printed analogue spine model described herein shows promising results, suggesting this model, with further validation, could have potential as a human cadaveric tissue substitute within the explored contexts of use.

References

Wilke H, Wenger K, Claes L . Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J. 1998; 7(2):148-54. PMC: 3611233. DOI: 10.1007/s005860050045. View

Beer P, Knell S, Pozzi A, Park B . Biomechanical comparison of ex vivo lumbar vertebral fracture luxations stabilized with tension band or polymethylmethacrylate in cats. Vet Surg. 2020; 49(8):1517-1526. DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13516. View

Park H, Wang C, Choi K, Kim H . Use of a life-size three-dimensional-printed spine model for pedicle screw instrumentation training. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13(1):86. PMC: 5902859. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0788-z. View

Okawa A, Shinomiya K, Takakuda K, Nakai O . A cadaveric study on the stability of lumbar segment after partial laminotomy and facetectomy with intact posterior ligaments. J Spinal Disord. 1996; 9(6):518-26. View

Campbell J, Coombs D, Rao M, Rullkoetter P, Petrella A . Automated finite element meshing of the lumbar spine: Verification and validation with 18 specimen-specific models. J Biomech. 2016; 49(13):2669-2676. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.05.025. View

Mitsuhashi N, Fujieda K, Tamura T, Kawamoto S, Takagi T, Okubo K . BodyParts3D: 3D structure database for anatomical concepts. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008; 37(Database issue):D782-5. PMC: 2686534. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkn613. View

Li C, Yang M, Xie Y, Chen Z, Wang C, Bai Y . Application of the polystyrene model made by 3-D printing rapid prototyping technology for operation planning in revision lumbar discectomy. J Orthop Sci. 2015; 20(3):475-80. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-015-0706-8. View

Bohl M, Morgan C, Mooney M, Repp G, Lehrman J, Kelly B . Biomechanical Testing of a 3D-printed L5 Vertebral Body Model. Cureus. 2019; 11(1):e3893. PMC: 6424546. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.3893. View

Sis H, Mannen E, Wong B, Cadel E, Bouxsein M, Anderson D . Effect of follower load on motion and stiffness of the human thoracic spine with intact rib cage. J Biomech. 2016; 49(14):3252-3259. PMC: 5702885. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.08.003. View

10.

El Bojairami I, El-Monajjed K, Driscoll M . Development and validation of a timely and representative finite element human spine model for biomechanical simulations. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):21519. PMC: 7725813. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-77469-1. View

11.

Bach M . Still Human: A Call for Increased Focus on Ethical Standards in Cadaver Research. HEC Forum. 2016; 28(4):355-367. DOI: 10.1007/s10730-016-9309-9. View

12.

Baumann A, Graf T, Peck J, Dmitriev A, Coughlan D, Lotz J . Assessing the use of finite element analysis for mechanical performance evaluation of intervertebral body fusion devices. JOR Spine. 2021; 4(1):e1137. PMC: 7984007. DOI: 10.1002/jsp2.1137. View

13.

Ke S, He X, Yang M, Wang S, Song X, Li Z . The biomechanical influence of facet joint parameters on corresponding segment in the lumbar spine: a new visualization method. Spine J. 2021; 21(12):2112-2121. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.05.024. View

14.

Gay R, Ilharreborde B, Zhao K, Boumediene E, An K . The effect of loading rate and degeneration on neutral region motion in human cadaveric lumbar motion segments. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2007; 23(1):1-7. PMC: 2271180. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.006. View

15.

Nagaoka T, Watanabe S, Sakurai K, Kunieda E, Watanabe S, Taki M . Development of realistic high-resolution whole-body voxel models of Japanese adult males and females of average height and weight, and application of models to radio-frequency electromagnetic-field dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2004; 49(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/1/001. View

16.

Bohl M, McBryan S, Newcomb A, Lehrman J, Kelly B, Nakaji P . Range of Motion Testing of a Novel 3D-Printed Synthetic Spine Model. Global Spine J. 2020; 10(4):419-424. PMC: 7222693. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219858981. View

17.

Patwardhan A, Havey R, Carandang G, Simonds J, Voronov L, Ghanayem A . Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine. J Orthop Res. 2003; 21(3):540-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00202-4. View

18.

Goel V, Wilder D, Pope M, Edwards W . Biomechanical testing of the spine. Load-controlled versus displacement-controlled analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(21):2354-7. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199511000-00017. View

19.

Hadagali P, Cronin D . Enhancing the Biofidelity of an Upper Cervical Spine Finite Element Model Within the Physiologic Range of Motion and Its Effect on the Full Ligamentous Neck Model Response. J Biomech Eng. 2022; 145(1). DOI: 10.1115/1.4055037. View

20.

Bohl M, McBryan S, Pais D, Chang S, Turner J, Nakaji P . The Living Spine Model: A Biomimetic Surgical Training and Education Tool. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2019; 19(1):98-106. DOI: 10.1093/ons/opz326. View