journal article·2025-05-12Open access

Biomechanical Optimization of Lumbar Fusion Cages with a Porous Design: A Finite Element Analysis

Chenkai Zhu, Kan Deng, Zhenzong Shao, Yong Wang

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 10

Abstract

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a standard treatment for spinal instability, yet postoperative subsidence and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) remain critical challenges. This study evaluates the biomechanical efficacy of personalized porous fusion cages—featuring Gyroid (G-Cage) and Voronoi (V-Cage) architectures—against classic (C-Cage) and personalized (P-Cage) designs, aiming to enhance stability and mitigate subsidence risks. A finite element model of the L3–L4 segment, derived from CT scans of a healthy male volunteer, was developed to simulate six motion modes (compression, rotation, flexion, extension, and left/right bending). Biomechanical parameters, including range of motion (ROM), cage stress, endplate stress, and displacement, were analyzed. The results demonstrated that the V-Cage exhibited superior performance, reducing ROM by 51% in extension, cage stress by 41.7% in compression, and endplate stress by 63.7% in right bending compared to the C-Cage. The porous designs (G-Cage, V-Cage) exhibited biomimetic stress distribution and minimized micromotion, which was attributed to their trabecular-like architectures. These findings highlight the Voronoi-based porous cage as a biomechanically optimized solution, offering enhanced stability and reduced subsidence risk when compared to classic implants. The study underscores the potential of patient-specific porous designs in advancing LIF outcomes, warranting further clinical validation to translate computational insights into practical applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Shoulder Injury and Treatment

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Ningbo Institute of Technology, Beihang University, 399 Kangda Road, Ningbo 315832, China

Funding

Ningbo Key Projects of Science and Technology

References (43)

Show source-provided references
1. Lumbar interbody fusion: A historical overview and a future perspective10.1097/BRS.0000000000002534 ↗
2. Lumbale spondylodese–indikationen und techniken10.1007/s00132-018-03670-w ↗
3. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion10.1016/j.nec.2019.08.004 ↗
4. Osteoblasts exhibit a more differentiated phenotype and increased bone morphogenetic protein production on titanium alloy substrates than on poly-ether-ether-ketone10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.002 ↗
5. Du, C.-F., Cai, X.-Y., Gui, W., Sun, M.-S., Liu, Z.-X., Liu, C.-J., Zhang, C.-Q., and Huang, Y.-P. (2021). Does oblique lumbar interbody fusion promote adjacent degeneration in degenerative disc disease: A finite element analysis. Comput. Biol. Med., 128.10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.104122 ↗
6. Does lumbar interbody cage size influence subsidence? A biomechanical study10.1097/BRS.0000000000003194 ↗
7. The effect of cervical interbody cage morphology, material composition, and substrate density on cage subsidence10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00390 ↗
8. Research progress on the biological modifications of implant materials in 3D printed intervertebral fusion cages10.1007/s10856-021-06609-4 ↗
9. Influence of the geometric and material properties of lumbar endplate on lumbar interbody fusion failure: A systematic review10.1186/s13018-022-03091-8 ↗
10. Topological design and biomechanical evaluation for 3D printed multi-segment artificial vertebral implants10.1016/j.msec.2021.112250 ↗
11. Mechanical performance of additively manufactured meta-biomaterials10.1016/j.actbio.2018.12.038 ↗
12. Al-Tamimi, A. (2021). 3D topology optimization and mesh dependency for redesigning locking compression plates aiming to reduce stress shielding. Int. J. Bioprinting, 7.10.18063/ijb.v7i3.339 ↗
13. Mechanical behaviours and mass transport properties of bone-mimicking scaffolds consisted of gyroid structures manufactured using selective laser melting10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.01.023 ↗
14. Energy absorption characteristics of metallic triply periodic minimal surface sheet structures under compressive loading
15. Role of cell regularity and relative density on elastoplastic compression response of 3-D open-cell foam core sandwich structure generated using Voronoi diagrams10.1016/j.actamat.2014.06.051 ↗
16. Additive manufacturing of Bio-inspired ceramic bone Scaffolds: Structural Design, mechanical properties and biocompatibility10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110610 ↗
17. Anisotropic biomimetic trabecular porous three-dimensional-printed Ti-6Al-4V cage for lumbar interbody fusion10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112254 ↗
18. Jain, P., Rana, M., Biswas, J.K., and Khan, M.R. (2020). Biomechanics of spinal implants—A review. Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express, 6.10.1088/2057-1976/ab9dd2 ↗
19. Biomechanical effect of L4–L5 intervertebral disc degeneration on the lower lumbar spine: A finite element study10.1111/os.12703 ↗
20. What is finite element analysis?10.1097/BSD.0000000000001050 ↗
21. Biomechanical study of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) augmented with different types of instrumentation: A finite element analysis10.1186/s13018-022-03143-z ↗
22. Du, C.-F., Yang, N., Guo, J.-C., Huang, Y.-P., and Zhang, C. (2016). Biomechanical response of lumbar facet joints under follower preload: A finite element study. BMC Musculoskelet. Dis., 17.10.1186/s12891-016-0980-4 ↗
23. Andrea, B.-F., Elena, N., Bentivoglio, D., Aprato, A., Terzini, M., Bignardi, C., Giaretta, S., and Momoli, A. (2025). In Silico Evaluation of the Primary Stability of Acetabular Revision Cups: Standard Versus Locking Screws. ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 147.10.1115/1.4068226 ↗
24. Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.12.001 ↗
25. Wu, T.-K., Meng, Y., Wang, B.-Y., Rong, X., Hong, Y., Ding, C., Chen, H., and Liu, H. (2019). Biomechanics following skip-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus skip-level cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element-based study. BMC Musculoskelet. Dis., 20.10.1186/s12891-019-2425-3 ↗
26. Stress analysis of the lumbar disc-body unit in compression a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element study10.1097/00007632-198403000-00003 ↗
27. Interlaminar shear stresses and laminae separation in a disc: Finite element analysis of the L3-L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads10.1097/00007632-199503150-00010 ↗
28. Mechanical response of a lumbar motion segment in axial torque alone and combined with compression10.1097/00007632-198611000-00012 ↗
29. Effect of mechanical loading on heterotopic ossification in cervical total disc replacement: A three-dimensional finite element analysis10.1007/s10237-015-0752-3 ↗
30. Cage-screw and anterior plating combination reduces the risk of micromotion and subsidence in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion—A finite element study10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.015 ↗
31. Three-dimensional movements of the whole lumbar spine and lumbosacral joint10.1097/00007632-198911000-00020 ↗
32. Xu, Z., Zheng, Q., Zhang, L., Chen, R., Li, Z., and Xu, W. (2024). Biomechanical evaluation of different oblique lumbar interbody fusion constructs: A finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet. Dis., 25.10.1186/s12891-024-07204-8 ↗
33. Nan, C., Ma, Z., Liu, Y., Ma, L., Li, J., and Zhang, W. (2022). Impact of cage position on biomechanical performance of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: A finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet. Dis., 23.10.1186/s12891-022-05873-x ↗
34. Multi-scale topology optimisation design and mechanical property analysis of porous interbody fusion cage10.1177/09592989241303291 ↗
35. Talpeanu, G., and Awaja, F. (2024). Optimizing spinal fusion implants: Advanced biomaterials and technologies for improved outcomes. Biomed. Mater. Devices, 1–33.10.1007/s44174-024-00228-7 ↗
36. Enhancing mechanical properties of additively manufactured voronoi-based architected metamaterials via a lattice-inspired design strategy10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2024.104199 ↗
37. Kiselevskiy, M.V., Anisimova, N.Y., Kapustin, A.V., Ryzhkin, A.A., Kuznetsova, D.N., Polyakova, V.V., and Enikeev, N.A. (2023). Development of bioactive scaffolds for orthopedic applications by designing additively manufactured titanium porous structures: A critical review. Biomimetics, 8.10.3390/biomimetics8070546 ↗
38. Cheloni, J.P.M., Zluhan, B., Silveira, M.E., Fonseca, E.B., Valim, D.B., and Lopes, E.S. (2025). Mechanical behavior and failure mode of body-centered cubic, gyroid, diamond, and Voronoi functionally graded additively manufactured biomedical lattice structures. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed., 163.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106796 ↗
39. Finite element model predicts the biomechanical performance of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with various porous additive manufactured cages10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.02.016 ↗
40. Logroscino, G., Proietti, L., and Pola, E. (2012). Spine fusion: Cages, plates and bone substitutes. Biomaterials for Spinal Surgery, Elsevier.10.1533/9780857096197.2.265 ↗
41. Advances in implants and bone graft types for lumbar spinal fusion surgery10.1039/D4BM00848K ↗
42. Trends in lumbar spinal fusion—A literature review10.21037/jss-20-492 ↗
43. Prediction of major complications and readmission after lumbar spinal fusion: A machine learning–driven approach10.1016/j.wneu.2021.05.080 ↗