Biomechanical Effects of Honeycomb and Grid Architectures in Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages: A Finite Element Study
N. S. Salleh
, M. H. Mazlan
, H. Takano
, M. A. Razali
, A. H. Abdullah
Abstract: Objective: This study aims to use finite element analysis to determine and compare the biomechanical performance of auxetic honeycomb and grid designs for LLIF cages. Materials and methods: The lumbar spine segment model consisting of the L4-L5 vertebrae was constructed. For interbody cages, a material called PEEK was used. The density-dependent model was used to characterize vertebral bone. The model comprised about 285,000 tetrahedral elements and achieved mesh convergence within 5% of the peak stress variation. All six degrees of freedom of the L5 inferior surface were constrained. Both a compressive load of 1000 N and a flexion moment of 10 Nm were applied to L4. The distribution of equivalent stress within the interbody cage and the adjacent vertebral bone was analyzed. Results: In a flexion-biased scenario, a grid cage had an average internal stress of 96.96 ± 0 MPa, whereas the honeycomb had a stress of 32.79 ± 0 MPa. Vertbral bone stress due to the grid design was lower (3.65 ± 0 MPa) than the honeycomb design (4.93 ± 0 MPa). The honeycomb configuration also provided a design that had a more uniform stress distribution within the cage. Discussion: The designs of interbody cages show that their architecture alters stress distribution and concentration. The honeycomb design enhances the potential for lower stress concentrations, while the grid design limits stress transfer to the bone, highlighting the biomechanical trade-offs of flexion load. Conclusion: The honeycomb design had biomechanical advantages in redistributing internal stress, and the grid design had an advantage in reducing stress transmission to the vertebral bone, thereby optimizing interbody cages.
Series on Biomechanics, Vol.40, No. 2 (2026), 69-84
DOI: 10.7546/SB.40.02.07.2026
Keywords: Finite element analysis; interbody fusion cage; spinal biomechanics; subsidence
| References: (click to open/close) | [1] Tawara, D., Noro, K., Tsujikami, T., Okamoto, Y., Murakami, H., 2014. Non-linear mechanical analysis of posterior spinal instrumentation for osteoporotic vertebra: Effects of mechanical properties of the rod on the failure risks around the screw. Journal of Biomechanical Science and Engineering, 9, 1-13.
[2] M. Bessho, I. Ohnishi, J. Matsuyama, T. Matsumoto, K. Imai, K. Nakamura, 2007. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method. Journal of Biomechanics, 40, 1745–1753.
[3] Peck, J. H., Kavlock, K. D., Showalter, B. L., Ferrell, B. M., Peck, D. G., Dmitriev, A. E., 2028. Mechanical performance of lumbar intervertebral body fusion devices: An analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. Journal of Biomechanics, 78, 87–93.
[4] Warburton, A., Cho, S. K., S. Girdler, S. J., Mikhail, C. M., Ahn, A., 2020. Biomaterials in Spinal Implants: A Review. Neurospine, 17, 101–110.
[5] ‘Dale’ Bass, C. R., Rafaels, K. A., Salzar, R. S., Carboni, M., Kent, R. W., Lloyd, M. D., Lucas, S., Meyerhoff, K., Planchak, C., Damon, A., Bass, G. T., 2008. Thoracic and lumbar spinal impact tolerance. Accident, Analysis and Prevention, 40, 487–495.
[6] Zhang, Z., Li, H., Fogel, G. R., Xiang, D., Liao, Z., Liu, W., 2018. Finite element model predicts the biomechanical performance of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with various porous additive manufactured cages. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 95, 2018, 167-174.
[7] Bounabi, M., Benabid, Y., Messellek, A. C., Azzouz, A., Abid, S., 2017. Design process of custom-fitted interbody cage for lumbar spinal fusion. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 20, 27-28.
[8] Zulkefli, A. A., Mazlan, M.H., Takano, H., Salleh, N. S. M., and Jalil, M. H., 2024. Biomedical Analysis of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) Cage for Lumbar Vertebrae. Series on Biomechanics, 38, 45-56.
[9] Nizam, N. A. H. M, Mazlan, M. H., Salleh, N. S. M., Razali, M. A., Abdullah, A. H., Jalil, M. H., Takano, H., and Nordin, N. D. D., 2021. Design and analysis of interbody fusion cage materials based on finite element analysis. 1st National Biomedical Engineering Conference, NBEC 2021, 7-12.
[10] Zulkefli, A. A., Mazlan, M.H., Takano, Abdullah, A. H., Jalil, M. H., and Mazlan, M. A., 2024. Analysis of Re-Entrant Honeycomb Auxetic Structure for Lumbar Vertebrae using Finite Element Analysis. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 19, 546-555.
[11] Mazlan, M.H., Todo, M., Takano, H., Yonezawa, I., Abdullah, A. H., Jalil, M. H., and Salleh, N. S. M., 2022. Biomechanical evaluation of osteoporotic spine models treated with Balloon Kyphoplasty (BKP) procedure. Series on Biomechanics, 36, 63-77.
[12] Ramli, M. S. F., Mazlan, M. H., Takano, H., Abdullah, A. H., and Jalil, M. H., 2023. A Review of Material, Design, and Techniques in 3D Printing for Medical Applications. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 19, 38-64.
[13] Salleh, N. S. M., Mazlan, M. H., and Razali, M. A., 2023. Comparative Biomechanical Evaluation of Unilateral and Bilateral Cages in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Endplates Subsidence, Pedicle Screw Loosening and Implant Stability. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 19, 123-138.
[14] Azmi, M. H., Mazlan, M. H., Ramli, M. S. F., Takano, H., Abdullah, A. H., Jalil, and M. H., Mazlan, M. A., 2025. Impact of Modified Orthogonal Peanut-Shaped Intervertebral Disc Implant Based on Finite Element Analysis. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 20, 237-244.
[15] Azmi, M. S., Izham, M. M., Jalil, M. H., and Mazlan, M. H., 2023. CT-FEA of Inhomogeneous Lumbar with Different Loadings of the Spinal Cage. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering, 20, 10894-10905.
|
|
| Date published: 2026-07-17
(Price of one pdf file: 25.00 EUR)
