Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Nuclear Fusion02:45

Nuclear Fusion

33.9K
The process of converting very light nuclei into heavier nuclei is also accompanied by the conversion of mass into large amounts of energy, a process called fusion. The principal source of energy in the sun is a net fusion reaction in which four hydrogen nuclei fuse and ultimately produce one helium nucleus and two positrons.
A helium nucleus has a mass that is 0.7% less than that of four hydrogen nuclei; this lost mass is converted into energy during the fusion. This reaction produces about...
33.9K
Electric Potential and Potential Difference01:16

Electric Potential and Potential Difference

5.8K
Suppose a positive test charge moves away from a positive static charge, then the Coulomb force does positive work, and its electric potential energy decreases. The potential energy per unit charge is defined as the electric potential. The electric potential is independent of the test charge.
When a test charge moves from the initial to the final position, the electric potential difference between those positions is defined as the ratio of the change in the potential energy to the charge on the...
5.8K
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection01:05

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

8.4K
The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
8.4K
Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test01:14

Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test

3.9K
The F-test is used to compare two sample variances to each other or compare the sample variance to the population variance. It is used to decide whether an indeterminate error can explain the difference in their values. The underlying assumptions that allow the use of the F-test include the data set or sets are normally distributed, and the data sets are independent of each other. The test statistic F is calculated by dividing one variance by another. In other words, the square of one standard...
3.9K
Sum and Difference OpAmps01:22

Sum and Difference OpAmps

1.4K
Operational amplifiers (op-amps) are versatile devices that extend beyond amplification. In this context, two specific op-amp configurations are explored: the summing and difference amplifiers.
A summing amplifier, or an adder, utilizes an op-amp to merge multiple input signals into a single output signal. When audio signals are introduced into its input channels, the input resistors initiate currents that traverse feedback resistors, resulting in an output voltage. Applying Kirchhoff's current...
1.4K
Difference Equation Solution using z-Transform01:24

Difference Equation Solution using z-Transform

653
The z-transform is a powerful tool for analyzing practical discrete-time systems, often represented by linear difference equations. Solving a higher-order difference equation requires knowledge of the input signal and the initial conditions up to one term less than the order of the equation.
The z-transform facilitates handling delayed signals by shifting the signal in the z-domain, which corresponds to delaying the signal in the time domain, and advancing signals by similarly shifting in the...
653

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Operational phenotyping for chronic low back pain: a narrative review and methodology for developing routing and escalation pathways across spine care.

Annals of palliative medicine·2026
Same author

Changes in low back pain, global sagittal alignment, and spinopelvic parameters following primary total hip arthroplasty: results of a prospective observational study with two-year follow-up.

European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society·2026
Same author

Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for spinopelvic parameters in standing total spine X-ray and limitations after fusion surgery.

Skeletal radiology·2026
Same author

Spinal mobility and paraspinal muscle degeneration: a cross-sectional analysis from the Berlin Back Study.

European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society·2026
Same author

Streamlining the MRI-Derived Vertebral Bone Quality Score for Preoperative Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Screening.

Global spine journal·2026
Same author

What are the Optimal Age Thresholds for qCT-based Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Screening in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion Surgery?

Spine·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 13, 2026

Novel Mini-open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
05:52

Novel Mini-open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Published on: June 6, 2025

746

Differences in 3D vs. 2D analysis in lumbar spinal fusion simulations.

Hung-Wei Hsu1, Maxim Bashkuev1, Matthias Pumberger2

  • 1Julius Wolff Institut, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Journal of Biomechanics
|March 22, 2018
PubMed
Summary

Realistic 3D lumbar spine models are crucial for accurately simulating bone formation during spinal fusion. This study highlights how 3D geometry significantly impacts fusion outcomes, improving predictions over simpler 2D models.

Keywords:
Bone formationFinite element methodInterbody cagesLordotic curveLumbar spinal fusion

More Related Videos

Time-Resolved, Dynamic Computed Tomography Angiography for Characterization of Aortic Endoleaks and Treatment Guidance via 2D-3D Fusion-Imaging
09:32

Time-Resolved, Dynamic Computed Tomography Angiography for Characterization of Aortic Endoleaks and Treatment Guidance via 2D-3D Fusion-Imaging

Published on: December 9, 2021

3.5K
Clinical Application of Microscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
04:42

Clinical Application of Microscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Published on: June 16, 2023

1.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 13, 2026

Novel Mini-open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
05:52

Novel Mini-open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Published on: June 6, 2025

746
Time-Resolved, Dynamic Computed Tomography Angiography for Characterization of Aortic Endoleaks and Treatment Guidance via 2D-3D Fusion-Imaging
09:32

Time-Resolved, Dynamic Computed Tomography Angiography for Characterization of Aortic Endoleaks and Treatment Guidance via 2D-3D Fusion-Imaging

Published on: December 9, 2021

3.5K
Clinical Application of Microscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
04:42

Clinical Application of Microscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Published on: June 16, 2023

1.2K

Area of Science:

  • Biomechanical Engineering
  • Orthopedic Surgery
  • Spinal Fusion Research

Background:

  • Lumbar interbody fusion is a standard treatment for disc degeneration and instability.
  • High non-union rates persist despite decades of use, often linked to mechanical factors.
  • Existing finite element (FE) models often lack realistic spinal geometry, limiting simulation accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate different finite element (FE) modeling approaches for simulating bone formation during lumbar spinal fusion.
  • To investigate the influence of realistic 3D lumbar spine geometry on fusion outcomes.
  • To assess the impact of varying lordotic angles on bone formation and segment stiffness.

Main Methods:

  • Developed three FE models of the L4-L5 lumbar motion segment: 2D, Sym-3D, and Nonsym-3D.
  • Integrated mechano-regulation algorithms with FE simulations to model the bone-formation process.
  • Analyzed the effects of lordotic angles (5°, 10°, 15°) on newly formed bone volume, axial stiffness, and bone distribution.

Main Results:

  • The Nonsym-3D model predicted more realistic bone formation compared to 2D and Sym-3D models, which showed excessive bone formation.
  • 3D models demonstrated a more uniform bone distribution within and around the cage than the 2D model.
  • Lordotic angle influenced bone formation and stiffness, with 3D models providing more nuanced predictions.

Conclusions:

  • Realistic 3D geometry of the lumbar motion segment is critical for accurate prediction of bone formation in spinal fusion.
  • Simulations using simplified models (2D, Sym-3D) may overestimate bone formation.
  • Advanced 3D modeling provides superior insights into the mechanical environment influencing lumbar spinal fusion success.