4.4 Review

Finite element analysis of the spine: Towards a framework of verification, validation and sensitivity analysis

Journal

MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 1287-1304

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.09.006

Keywords

Finite element analysis; Computational models; Spine; Vertebra; Intervertebral disc

Funding

  1. EPSRC [EP/D002710/1, EP/F010575/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/D002710/1, EP/F010575/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A number of papers have recently emphasised the importance of verification, validation and sensitivity testing ill Computational studies within the field of biomechanical engineering. This review examines the methods used in the development of spinal finite element models with a view to a standardised framework of verification, validation and sensitivity analysis. The scope of this paper is restricted to models of the vertebra, the intervertebral disc and short spinal segments. In the case of single vertebral models, specimen-specific methods have been developed, which allow direct validation against experimental tests. The focus of intervertebral disc modelling has been on representing the complex material properties and further sensitivity testing is required to fully understand the relative roles of these input parameters. In order to construct complex multi-component short segment models, many geometric and material parameters are required, some of which are yet to be fully characterised. There are also major challenges in terms of short segment model validation. Throughout the review, areas of good practise are highlighted and recommendations for future development are proposed, taking a step towards more robust spinal modelling procedures, promoting acceptance from the wider biomechanics community. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IPEM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available