Crystallinity dependency of the time-dependent mechanical response of polyethylene: application in total disc replacement

  • Qifeng Jiang
  • Fahmi ZaïriEmail author
  • Caroline Fréderix
  • Amil Derrouiche
  • Zhu Yan
  • Zhengwei Qu
  • Xiaobing Liu
  • Fahed Zaïri
Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization


Degeneration of the intervertebral disc (IVD) is a leading source of chronic low back pain or neck pain, and represents the main cause of long-term disability worldwide. In the aim to relieve pain, total disc replacement (TDR) is a valuable surgical treatment option, but the expected benefit strongly depends on the prosthesis itself. The present contribution is focused on the synthetic mimic of the native IVD in the aim to optimally restore its functional anatomy and biomechanics, and especially its time-dependency. Semi-crystalline polyethylene (PE) materials covering a wide spectrum of the crystallinity are used to propose new designs of TDR. The influence of the crystallinity on various features of the time-dependent mechanical response of the PE materials is reported over a large strain range by means of dynamic mechanical thermo-analysis and video-controlled tensile mechanical tests. The connection of the stiffness and the yield strength with the microstructure is reported in the aim to propose a model predicting the crystallinity dependency of the response variation with the frequency. New designs of TDR are proposed and implemented into an accurate computational model of a cervical spine segment in order to simulate the biomechanical response under physiological conditions. Predicted in-silico motions are found in excellent agreement with experimental data extracted from published in-vitro studies under compression and different neck movements, namely, rotation, flexion/extension and lateral bending. The simulation results are also criticized by analyzing the local stresses and the predicted biomechanical responses provided by the different prosthetic solutions in terms of time-dependency manifested by the hysteretic behavior under a cyclic movement and the frequency effect.



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No.: 51769035), the Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Fluid and Power Machinery, Ministry of Education, Xihua University (Project No.: szjj-2016-060) and the Open Research Fund Program of Key Laboratory of Fluid and Power Machinery, Ministry of Education, Xihua University (Project No.: szjj-2017-100-1-006).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors disclose any financial and personal relationships with the other people ororganizations that could inappropriately influence their work.


  1. 1.
    Vos T, Allen C, Arora M, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Brown A, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388:1545–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maiman DJ, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA. Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments. Bio-Med Mater Eng. 1999;9:27–38.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD. et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine. 2002;27:2431–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Errico TJ. Why a mechanical disc? Spine J. 2004;4:151–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uschold TD, Fusco D, Germain R, Tumialan LM, Chang SW. Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review. Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33:1631–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE. Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine. Oxford: Elsevier; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abi-Hanna D, Kerferd J, Phan K, Rao P, Mobbs R. Lumbar disk arthroplasty for degenerative disk disease: literature review. World Neurosurg. 2018;109:188–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Race A, Broom ND, Robertson P. Effect of loading rate and hydration on the mechanical properties of the disc. Spine. 2000;25:662–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holzapfel GA, Schulze-Bauer CAJ, Feigl G, Regitnig P. Single lamellar mechanics of the human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2005;3:125–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kemper AR, McNally C, Duma SM. The influence of strain rate on the compressive stiffness properties of human lumbar intervertebral discs. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2007;43:176–81.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ambard D, Cherblanc F. Mechanical behavior of annulus fibrosus: a microstructural model of fibers reorientation. Ann Biomed Eng. 2009;37:2256–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newell N, Grigoriadis G, Christou A, Carpanen D, Masouros SD. Material properties of bovine intervertebral discs across strain rates. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;65:824–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newell N, Little JP, Christou A, Adams MA, Adam CJ, Masouros SD. Biomechanics of the human intervertebral disc: a review of testing techniques and results. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;69:420–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Derrouiche A, Zaouali A, Zaïri F, Ismail J, Chaabane M, Qu Z. et al. Osmo-inelastic response of the intervertebral disc. Proc IMechE Part H: J Eng Med. 2019;233:332–41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tavakoli J, Costi JJ. New findings confirm the viscoelastic behaviour of the inter-lamellar matrix of the disc annulus fibrosus in radial and circumferential directions of loading. Acta Biomater. 2018;71:411–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peacock AJ. Handbook of polyethylene: structures, properties, and applications. In: Dekker M, editor. New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ayoub G, Zaïri F, Fréderix C, Gloaguen JM, Naït-Abdelaziz M, Séguéla R et al. Effects of crystal content on the mechanical behaviour of polyethylene under finite strains: experiments and constitutive modelling. Inter J Plast. 2011;27:492–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abdul-Hameed H, Messager T, Ayoub G, Zaïri F, Naït-Abdelaziz M, Qu Z et al. A two-phase hyperelastic-viscoplastic constitutive model for semi-crystalline polymers: application to polyethylene materials with a variable range of crystal fractions. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;37:323–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abdul-Hameed H, Messager T, Zaïri F, Naït-Abdelaziz M. Large-strain viscoelastic-viscoplastic constitutive modeling of semi-crystalline polymers and model identification by deterministic/evolutionary approach. Comp Mater Sci. 2014;90:241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Makki M, Ayoub G, Abdul-Hameed H, Zaïri F, Mansoor B, Naït-Abdelaziz M et al. Mullins effect in polyethylene and its dependency on crystal content: a network alteration model. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;75:442–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pelker RR, Duranceau JS, Panjabi MM. Cervical spine stabilization. A three-dimensional, biomechanical evaluation of rotational stability, strength, and failure mechanisms. Spine. 1991;16:117–22.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shea M, Edwards WT, White AA, Hayes WC. Variations of stiffness and strength along the human cervical spine. J Biomech. 1991;24:99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maurel N, Lavaste F, Skalli W. A three-dimensional parameterized finite element model of the lower cervical spine. Study of the influence of the posterior articular facets. J Biomech. 1997;30:921–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goel VK, Clausen JD. Prediction of load sharing among spinal components of a C5-C6 motion segment using the finite element approach. Spine. 1998;23:684–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wheeldon JA, Pintar FA, Knowles S, Yoganandan N. Experimental flexion/extension data corridors for validation of finite element models of the young, normal cervical spine. J Biomech. 2006;39:375–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soares JBP, Kim JD, Rempel GL. Analysis and control of the molecular weight and chemical composition distributions of polyolefins made with metallocene and ziegler-natta catalysts. Ind Eng Chem Res. 1997;36:1144–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wunderlich B. Macromolecular physics, crystal melting. New York: Academic Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G’sell C, Jonas JJ. Determination of the plastic behaviour of solid polymers at constant true strain rate. J Mater Sci. 1979;14:583–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ward IM, Sweeney J. An introduction to the mechanical properties of solid polymers. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Popli R, Glotin M, Mandelkern L, Benson RS. Dynamic mechanical studies of α and β relaxations of polyethylenes. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys. 1984;22:407–48.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Richeton J, Schlatter G, Vecchio KS, Rémond Y, Ahzi S. A unified model for stiffness modulus of amorphous polymers across transition temperatures and strain rates. Polym (Guildf). 2005;46:8194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Inoue H, Takeda T. Three-dimensional observation of collagen framework of lumbar intervertebral discs. Acta Orth. 1975;46:949–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eyre DR. Biochemistry of the intervertebral disc. Inter Rev Connect Tissue Res. 1979;8:227–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guerin HAL, Elliott DM. Degeneration affects the fiber reorientation of human annulus fibrosus under tensile load. J Biomech. 2006;39:1410–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Skaggs DL, Weidenbaum M, Iatridis JC, Ratcliffe A, Mow VC. Regional variation in tensile properties and biochemical composition of the human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Spine. 1994;19:1310–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ebara S, Iatridis JC, Setton LA, Foster RJ, Mow VC, Weidenbaum M. Tensile properties of nondegenerate human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Spine. 1996;21:452–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Michalek AJ, Buckley MR, Bonassar LJ, Cohen I, Iatridis JC. Measurement of local strains in intervertebral disc anulus fibrosus tissue under dynamic shear: contributions of matrix fiber orientation and elastin content. J Biomech. 2009;42:2279–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Xihua UniversityKey Laboratory of Fluid and Power MachineryChengduChina
  2. 2.Lille UniversityCivil Engineering and geo-Environmental Laboratory (EA 4515 LGCgE)LilleFrance
  3. 3.Solvay-CampusBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Ramsay Générale de SantéHôpital privé Le BoisLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations