Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Finite element model of the lumbar spine used in this article.
- Figure 2
Validation of computationally efficient model healthy spine L1–L5 load-deflection relationship under pure moment of 7.5 Nm.
- Figure 3
Validation of computationally efficient model healthy spine L4–L5 intradiscal pressure under compression load of 1000 N.
- Figure 4
Validation of computationally efficient model healthy spine total L1–L5 range of motion under pure moment of 7.5 Nm.
- Figure 5
Change in segmental range of motion when comparing a degenerated disc spine computationally efficient model (CEM) to a healthy spine CEM under a pure moment of 7.5 Nm in flexion.
- Figure 6
Change in segmental range of motion when comparing a degenerated disc spine computationally efficient model (CEM) to a healthy spine CEM under a pure moment of 7.5 Nm in extension.
- Figure 7
Change in segmental range of motion when comparing a degenerated disc spine computationally efficient model (CEM) to a healthy spine CEM under a pure moment of 7.5 Nm in lateral bending.
- Figure 8
Change in segmental range of motion when comparing a degenerated disc spine computationally efficient model (CEM) to a healthy spine CEM under a pure moment of 7.5 Nm in axial rotation.
- Figure 9
Mesh density comparison. Left: computationally efficient model with 35 000 nodes. Right: identical model with 140 000 nodes (the average number of nodes found in CT scan–based FEMs).
Tables
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.