Back

Patient-specific computational mechanics of functional lumbar spine units

Fumagalli, I.; Campioni, M.; Sirtori, A.; Pagani, S.; Levi, R.; Politi, L. S.; Capo, G.; Antonietti, P. F.

2026-06-08 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.06.03.729850 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In the current clinical practice, the diagnosis of spinal disorders and their surgical planning are critically based on imaging data. To complement this data, patient-specific finite element models have been developed and showed to be powerful tools for evaluating spine mechanics. Most of them rely on Computational Tomography (CT) scans - which have a high resolution but are seldom available in routine clinical practice - while only a recent few models are on less invasive Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Yet, despite the proliferation of these computational models, encompassing detailed anatomical and functional information, the rheological assumptions they are built upon are based on tissue-sample mechanical response data, which leaves a gap in the quantitative analysis on how such assumptions influence the macroscopic response of a functional spinal unit. Aiming at addressing these shortcomings, the main purpose of this work is to introduce a quantitative computational assessment of the macroscopic impact of commonly adopted rheological models - from linear elasticity to fiber-reinforced nonlinear hyperelasticity - in several loading conditions, focusing on a lumbar unit which is considered as a typical benchmark system. We also propose a reconstruction procedure to accurately describe subject-specific anatomy from MRI data, including the intervertebral disc and its nucleus pulposus. Bones are modeled as linear elastic media, whereas for the AF, we consider three different mechanical models - namely, isotropic linear elasticity and the Holzapfel-Gasser-Ogden model with and without fiber reinforcement. Model verification on an idealized geometry demonstrates numerical consistency, while parametric orthostatic simulations highlight the need for nonlinear formulations to capture anisotropy and strain-stiffening behavior of the intervertebral disc. Then, we carry out flexion, lateral bending, and torsion tests on a subject-specific reconstructed functional unit, for which we provide parametric analysis in terms of momentum magnitude and resulting range of motion. These tests further confirm the need for a nonlinear rheology of the annulus fibrosus and provide a quantitative assessment of the differences between the constitutive laws considered. Moreover, successful comparisons with the literature, in terms of macroscopic deformation under several loading conditions, serve as partial validation for our computational model.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
2
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.2%
5
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.4%
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 29%
5.4%
8
Acta Biomaterialia
92 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.4%
9
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
10
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
11
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.7%
14
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
16
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
17
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
18
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
19
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
20
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%