Premium
On the importance of retaining stresses and strains in repositioning computational biomechanical models of the cervical spine
Author(s) -
BoakyeYiadom Solomon,
Cronin Duane S.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.741
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 2040-7947
pISSN - 2040-7939
DOI - 10.1002/cnm.2905
Subject(s) - kinematics , stress (linguistics) , tension (geology) , deformation (meteorology) , cervical spine , structural engineering , range of motion , biomechanics , failure mode and effects analysis , computational model , orthodontics , computer science , materials science , medicine , simulation , anatomy , engineering , ultimate tensile strength , surgery , composite material , physics , linguistics , philosophy , classical mechanics
Human body models are created in a specific posture and often repositioned and analyzed without retaining stresses that result from repositioning. For example, repositioning a human neck model within the physiological range of motion to a head‐turned posture prior to an impact results in initial stresses within the tissues distracted from their neutral position. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of repositioning on the subsequent kinetics, kinematics, and failure modes, of a lower cervical spine motion segment, to support future research at the full neck level. Repositioning was investigated for 3 modes (tension, flexion, and extension) and 3 load cases. The model was repositioned and loaded to failure in one continuous load history (case 1), or repositioned then restarted with retained stresses and loaded to failure (case 2). In case 3, the model was repositioned and then restarted in a stress‐free state, representing current repositioning methods. Not retaining the repositioning stresses and strains resulted in different kinetics, kinematics, or failure modes, depending on the mode of loading. For the motion segment model, the differences were associated with the intervertebral disc fiber reorientation and load distribution, because the disc underwent the largest deformation during repositioning. This study demonstrated that repositioning led to altered response and tissue failure, which is critical for computational models intended to predict injury at the tissue level. It is recommended that stresses and strains be included and retained for subsequent analysis when repositioning a human computational neck model.