0
Research Papers

Porous Biodegradable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Design and Fabrication Using Integrated Global-Local Topology Optimization With Laser Sintering

[+] Author and Article Information
Heesuk Kang

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Scott J. Hollister

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
Department of Surgery,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Frank La Marca

Spine Research Laboratory,
Department of Neurosurgery,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Paul Park

Spine Research Laboratory,
Department of Neurosurgery,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Chia-Ying Lin

Spine Research Laboratory,
Department of Neurosurgery,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: lincy@umich.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Bioengineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Manuscript received September 26, 2012; final manuscript received June 10, 2013; accepted manuscript posted July 29, 2013; published online September 23, 2013. Assoc. Editor: James C. Iatridis.

J Biomech Eng 135(10), 101013 (Sep 23, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: BIO-12-1442; doi: 10.1115/1.4025102 History: Received September 26, 2012; Revised June 10, 2013; Accepted June 29, 2013

Biodegradable cages have received increasing attention for their use in spinal procedures involving interbody fusion to resolve complications associated with the use of nondegradable cages, such as stress shielding and long-term foreign body reaction. However, the relatively weak initial material strength compared to permanent materials and subsequent reduction due to degradation may be problematic. To design a porous biodegradable interbody fusion cage for a preclinical large animal study that can withstand physiological loads while possessing sufficient interconnected porosity for bony bridging and fusion, we developed a multiscale topology optimization technique. Topology optimization at the macroscopic scale provides optimal structural layout that ensures mechanical strength, while optimally designed microstructures, which replace the macroscopic material layout, ensure maximum permeability. Optimally designed cages were fabricated using solid, freeform fabrication of poly(ε-caprolactone) mixed with hydroxyapatite. Compression tests revealed that the yield strength of optimized fusion cages was two times that of typical human lumbar spine loads. Computational analysis further confirmed the mechanical integrity within the human lumbar spine, although the pore structure locally underwent higher stress than yield stress. This optimization technique may be utilized to balance the complex requirements of load-bearing, stress shielding, and interconnected porosity when using biodegradable materials for fusion cages.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Deyo, R. A., Gray, D. T., Kreuter, W., Mirza, S., and Martin, B. I., 2005, “United States Trends in Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Conditions,” Spine, 30(12), pp. 1441–1447. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chen, N. F., Smith, Z. A., Stiner, E., Armin, S., Sheikh, H., and Khoo, L. T., 2010, “Symptomatic Ectopic Bone Formation After Off-Label Use of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, 12(1), pp. 40–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McAfee, P. C., 1999, “Interbody Fusion Cages in Reconstructive Operations on the Spine,” J. Bone Joint. Surg. Am., 81(6), pp. 859–880. [PubMed]
Kuslich, S. D., Ulstrom, C. L., Griffith, S. L., Ahern, J. W., and Dowdle, J. D., 1998, “The Bagby and Kuslich Method of Lumbar Interbody Fusion. History, Techniques, and 2-Year Follow-Up Results of a United States Prospective, Multicenter Trial,” Spine, 23(11), pp. 1267–1279. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Whitecloud, T. S.III, Castro, F. P.Jr., Brinker, M. R., Hartzog, C. W.Jr., Ricciardi, J. E., and Hill, C., 1998, “Degenerative Conditions of the Lumbar Spine Treated With Intervertebral Titanium Cages and Posterior Instrumentation for Circumferential Fusion,” J. Spinal Disord., 11(6), pp. 479–486. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kanayama, M., Cunningham, B. W., Haggerty, C. J., Abumi, K., Kaneda, K., and McAfee, P. C., 2000, “In Vitro Biomechanical Investigation of the Stability and Stress-Shielding Effect of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Devices,” J. Neurosurg., 93(2 Suppl.), pp. 259–265. [PubMed]
Smith, K. R., Hunt, T. R., Asher, M. A., Anderson, H. C., Carson, W. L., and Robinson, R. G., 1991, “The Effect of a Stiff Spinal Implant on the Bone-Mineral Content of the Lumbar Spine in Dogs,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 73(1), pp. 115–123. [PubMed]
van Dijk, M., Smit, T. H., Sugihara, S., Burger, E. H., and Wuisman, P. I., 2002, “The Effect of Cage Stiffness on the Rate of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An in Vivo Model Using Poly(l-Lactic Acid) and Titanium Cages,” Spine, 27(7), pp. 682–688. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cizek, G. R., and Boyd, L. M., 2000, “Imaging Pitfalls of Interbody Spinal Implants,” Spine, 25(20), pp. 2633–2636. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Robertson, D. D., Sharma, G. B., Gilbertson, L. G., and Kang, J. D., 2009, “Bone Densitometry Within Titanium Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages: A Computed Tomography Feasibility Study,” Spine, 34(25), pp. 2792–2796. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van Dijk, M., Smit, T. H., Burger, E. H., and Wuisman, P. I., 2002, “Bioabsorbable Poly-L-Lactic Acid Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Three-Year Follow-Up Radiographic, Histologic, and Histomorphometric Analysis in Goats,” Spine, 27(23), pp. 2706–2714. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van Dijk, M., van Diest, P. J., Smit, T. H., Berkhof, H., Burger, E. H., and Wuisman, P. I., 2005, “Four-Year Follow-Up of Poly-L-Lactic Acid Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Goats,” J. Long Term Eff. Med. Implants, 15(2), pp. 125–138. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Smit, T. H., Krijnen, M. R., van Dijk, M., and Wuisman, P. I., 2006, “Application of Polylactides in Spinal Cages: Studies in a Goat Model,” J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med., 17(12), pp. 1237–1244. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kandziora, F., Pflugmacher, R., Scholz, M., Eindorf, T., Schnake, K. J., and Haas, N. P., 2004, “Bioabsorbable Interbody Cages in a Sheep Cervical Spine Fusion Model,” Spine, 29(17), pp. 1845–1856. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Weiner, B. K., and Fraser, R. D., 1998, “Spine Update Lumbar Interbody Cages,” Spine, 23(5), pp. 634–640. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hollister, S. J., 2005, “Porous Scaffold Design for Tissue Engineering,” Nat. Mater., 4(7), pp. 518–524. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lin, C. Y., Hsiao, C. C., Chen, P. Q., and Hollister, S. J., 2004, “Interbody Fusion Cage Design Using Integrated Global Layout and Local Microstructure Topology Optimization,” Spine, 29(16), pp. 1747–1754. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lin, C. Y., Wirtz, T., La Marca, F., and Hollister, S. J., 2007, “Structural and Mechanical Evaluations of a Topology Optimized Titanium Interbody Fusion Cage Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting Process,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A, 83(2), pp. 272–279. [PubMed]
Hollister, S. J., Maddox, R. D., and Taboas, J. M., 2002, “Optimal Design and Fabrication of Scaffolds to Mimic Tissue Properties and Satisfy Biological Constraints,” Biomaterials, 23(20), pp. 4095–4103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hollister, S. J., Levy, R. A., Chu, T. M., Halloran, J. W., and Feinberg, S. E., 2000, “An Image-Based Approach for Designing and Manufacturing Craniofacial Scaffolds,” Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 29(1), pp. 67–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hutmacher, D. W., 2001, “Scaffold Design and Fabrication Technologies for Engineering Tissues–State of the Art and Future Perspectives,” J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed., 12(1), pp. 107–124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lin, C. Y., Schek, R. M., Mistry, A. S., Shi, X., Mikos, A. G., Krebsbach, P. H., and Hollister, S. J., 2005, “Functional Bone Engineering Using Ex Vivo Gene Therapy and Topology-Optimized, Biodegradable Polymer Composite Scaffolds,” Tissue Eng., 11(9–10), pp. 1589–1598. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schek, R. M., Taboas, J. M., Hollister, S. J., and Krebsbach, P. H., 2005, “Tissue Engineering Osteochondral Implants for Temporomandibular Joint Repair,” Orthod. Craniofac. Res., 8(4), pp. 313–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shiraziadl, A., Ahmed, A. M., and Shrivastava, S. C., 1986, “A Finite-Element Study of a Lumbar Motion Segment Subjected to Pure Sagittal Plane Moments,” J. Biomech., 19(4), pp. 331–350. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhong, Z. C., Wei, S. H., Wang, J. P., Feng, C. K., Chen, C. S., and Yu, C. H., 2006, “Finite Element Analysis of the Lumbar Spine With a New Cage Using a Topology Optimization Method,” Med. Eng. Phys., 28(1), pp. 90–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ekstrom, L., Holm, S., Holm, A. K., and Hansson, T., 2004, “In Vivo Porcine Intradiscal Pressure as a Function of External Loading,” J. Spinal Disord. Tech., 17(4), pp. 312–316. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kang, H., Lin, C.-Y., and Hollister, S. J., 2010, “Topology Optimization of Three Dimensional Tissue Engineering Scaffold Architectures for Prescribed Bulk Modulus and Diffusivity,” Struct. Multidisc Optim., 42, pp. 633–644. [CrossRef]
Gibiansky, L. V., and Torquato, S., 1996, “Connection Between the Conductivity and Bulk Modulus of Isotropic Composite Materials,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 452(1945), pp. 253–283. [CrossRef]
Nachemson, A., 1966, “The Load on Lumbar Disks in Different Positions of the Body,” Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 45, pp. 107–122. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Williams, J. M., Adewunmi, A., Schek, R. M., Flanagan, C. L., Krebsbach, P. H., Feinberg, S. E., Hollister, S. J., and Das, S., 2005, “Bone Tissue Engineering Using Polycaprolactone Scaffolds Fabricated Via Selective Laser Sintering,” Biomaterials, 26(23), pp. 4817–4827. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goulet, R. W., Goldstein, S. A., Ciarelli, M. J., Kuhn, J. L., Brown, M. B., and Feldkamp, L. A., 1994, “The Relationship Between the Structural and Orthogonal Compressive Properties of Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech., 27(4), pp. 375–389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ang, K. C., Leong, K. F., Chua, C. K., and Chandrasekaran, M., 2007, “Compressive Properties and Degradability of Poly(Epsilon-Caprolactone)/Hydroxyapatite Composites Under Accelerated Hydrolytic Degradation,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 80A(3), pp. 655–660. [CrossRef]
Engelberg, I., and Kohn, J., 1991, “Physico-Mechanical Properties of Degradable Polymers Used in Medical Applications: A Comparative Study,” Biomaterials, 12(3), pp. 292–304. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Eshraghi, S., and Das, S., 2010, “Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of Polycaprolactone Scaffolds With One-Dimensional, Two-Dimensional, and Three-Dimensional Orthogonally Oriented Porous Architectures Produced by Selective Laser Sintering,” Acta Biomater., 6(7), pp. 2467–2476. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Takahashi, I., Kikuchi, S., Sato, K., and Sato, N., 2006, “Mechanical Load of the Lumbar Spine During Forward Bending Motion of the Trunk-a Biomechanical Study,” Spine, 31(1), pp. 18–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schultz, A., Andersson, G., Ortengren, R., Haderspeck, K., and Nachemson, A., 1982, “Loads on the Lumbar Spine. Validation of a Biomechanical Analysis by Measurements of Intradiscal Pressures and Myoelectric Signals,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 64(5), pp. 713–720. [PubMed]
Shor, L., Gueceri, S., Gandhi, M., Wen, X., and Sun, W., 2008, “Solid Freeform Fabrication of Polycaprolactone/Hydroxyapatite Tissue Scaffolds,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. E.-T., 130(2), p. 021018. [CrossRef]
Karageorgiou, V., and Kaplan, D., 2005, “Porosity of 3D Biomaterial Scaffolds and Osteogenesis,” Biomaterials, 26(27), pp. 5474–5491. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Roosa, S. M., Kemppainen, J. M., Moffitt, E. N., Krebsbach, P. H., and Hollister, S. J., 2010, “The Pore Size of Polycaprolactone Scaffolds Has Limited Influence on Bone Regeneration in an in Vivo Model,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A, 92(1), pp. 359–368. [PubMed]
Jiya, T., Smit, T., Deddens, J., and Mullender, M., 1976, “Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Nonresorbable Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone Versus Resorbable Poly-L-Lactide-Co-D,L-Lactide Fusion Devices: A Prospective, Randomized Study to Assess Fusion and Clinical Outcome,” Spine, 34(3), pp. 233–237. [CrossRef]
Karjalainen, T., Hiljanen-Vainio, M., Malin, M., and Seppala, J., 1996, “Biodegradable Lactone Copolymers. III. Mechanical Properties of Epsilon-Caprolactone and Lactide Copolymers After Hydrolysis in Vitro,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 26(11), pp. 3779–3787.
Pitt, C. G., Chasalow, F. I., Hibionada, Y. M., Klimas, D. M., and Schindler, A., 1981, “Aliphatic Polyesters. I. The Degradation of Poly(Epsilon-Caprolactone) in Vivo,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 26(11), pp. 3779–3787. [CrossRef]
Smit, T. H., Engels, T. A., Wuisman, P. I., and Govaert, L. E., 1976, “Time-Dependent Mechanical Strength of 70/30 Poly(L, DL-Lactide): Shedding Light on the Premature Failure of Degradable Spinal Cages,” Spine, 33(1), pp. 14–18. [CrossRef]
Goel, V. K., and Gilbertson, L. G., 1997, “Basic Science of Spinal Instrumentation,” Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 335, pp. 10–31. [PubMed]
Lin, R. M., Tsai, K. H., and Chang, G. L., 1997, “Distribution and Regional Strength of Trabecular Bone in the Porcine Lumbar Spine,” Clin. Biomech., 12(5), pp. 331–336. [CrossRef]
Smit, T. H., 2002, “The Use of a Quadruped as an in Vivo Model for the Study of the Spine—Biomechanical Considerations,” Eur. Spine J., 11(2), pp. 137–144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Murphy, W. L., Kohn, D. H., and Mooney, D. J., 2000, “Growth of Continuous Bonelike Mineral Within Porous Poly(Lactide-Co-Glycolide) Scaffolds in Vitro,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 50(1), pp. 50–58. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhang, H., Migneco, F., Lin, C.-Y., and Hollister, S. J., 2010, “Chemically-Conjugated Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 on Three-Dimensional Polycaprolactone Scaffolds Stimulates Osteogenic Activity in Bone Marrow Stromal Cells,” Tissue Eng. Part A, 16, pp. 3441–3448. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van Dijk, M., Smit, T. H., Arnoe, M. F., Burger, E. H., and Wuisman, P. I., 2003, “The Use of Poly-L-Lactic Acid in Lumbar Interbody Cages: Design and Biomechanical Evaluation in Vitro,” Eur. Spine J., 12(1), pp. 34–40. [PubMed]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Ligamentous FE models of mini-pig lumbar spine segments (L2–L5) and (b) design domain for global topology optimization at L4–L5 level

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Global density maps (left) and segmentations (right) obtained using global topology optimization, under (a) flexion, (b) extension, (c) lateral bending, and (d) torsion. (e) Combination of all loading modes used for the final integrated design.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

All property pairs of microstructures are on the cross-property upper bounds, indicating the microstructures are optimal. (a) and (c) were designed using microstructural topology optimization, and (b) and (d) were designed using primitive pore geometry (cylindrical holes).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Pore architecture and final design of the cylindrical pore fusion cage. (b) Pore architecture and final design of topology optimized pore fusion cage. (c) A prototype fabricated using SFF. (d) Prototypes scaled to fit the minipig (upper) and human (lower) intervertebral disk spaces. (e) The customized cage height was checked in domestic pig lumbar intervertebral disk space.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

For compression tests, fusion cages with (a) cylindrical pore microstructures, (b) optimized microstructures, and (c) the conventional TLIF cage were fabricated without detailed features to eliminate the initial yield caused by teethlike geometric features

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Line graph showing compression test results, confirming superior stiffness and strength of the optimized designs over conventional TLIF design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Stress–strain curve obtained from compression test of a bulk cylindrical specimen to determine Young’s modulus and yield stress for the FE analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) von Mises stress level for optimal fusion cage without pore structures is below the yield stress (8.5 MPa). With initial pore structures (b) and (c), the stress level increased over the yield compared to (a). However, after initial bony fusion inside the pores (d and e), the stress level decreased below the yield (9 MPa). These results indicate that the majority of loading support is provided by the outer wall. Although local yield at the microstructures increases initially, ingrown bone will take over the loads from the fusion cage, alleviating the load burden at the microstructures.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In