Traditional experimental methods are unable to study the kinematics of whole lumbar spine specimens under physiologic compressive preloads because the spine without active musculature buckles under just 120 N of vertical load. However, the lumbar spine can support a compressive load of physiologic magnitude (up to 1200 N) without collapsing if the load is applied along a follower load path. This study tested the hypothesis that the load–displacement response of the lumbar spine in flexion–extension is affected by the magnitude of the follower preload and the follower preload path. Twenty‐one fresh human cadaveric lumbar spines were tested in flexion–extension under increasing compressive follower preload applied along two distinctly different optimized preload paths. The first (neutral) preload path was considered optimum if the specimen underwent the least angular change in its lordosis when the full range of preload (0–1200 N) was applied in its neutral posture. The second (flexed) preload path was optimized for an intermediate specimen posture between neutral and full flexion. A twofold increase in flexion stiffness occurred around the neutral posture as the preload was increased from 0 to 1200 N. The preload magnitude (400 N and larger) significantly affected the range of motion (ROM), with a 25% decrease at 1200 N preload applied along the neutral path. When the preload was applied along a path optimized for an intermediate forward‐flexed posture, only a 15% decrease in ROM occurred at 1200 N. The results demonstrate that whole lumbar spine specimens can be subjected to compressive follower preloads of in vivo magnitudes while allowing physiologic mobility under flexion–extension moments. The optimized follower preload provides a method to simulate the resultant vector of the muscles that allow the spine to support physiologic compressive loads induced during flexion–extension activities. © 2002 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

N/A.

Many clinical trials on chiropractic management of low back pain have neglected to include specific forms of care. This study compared two well-defined treatment protocols. The objective was to compare the outcome of flexion-distraction (FD) procedures performed by chiropractors with an active trunk exercise protocol (ATEP) performed by physical therapists. A randomized clinical trial study design was used. Subjects, 18 years of age and older, with a primary complaint of low back pain (>3 months) were recruited. A 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for perceived pain, the Roland Morris (RM) Questionnaire for low back function, and the SF-36 for overall health status served as primary outcome measures. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive either FD or ATEP. The FD intervention consisted of the application of flexion and traction applied to specific regions in the low back, with the aid of a specially designed manipulation table. The ATEP intervention included stabilizing and flexibility exercises, the use of modalities, and cardiovascular training. A total of 235 subjects met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and signed the informed consent. Of these, 123 were randomly allocated to FD and 112 to the ATEP. Study patients perceived significantly less pain and better function after intervention, regardless of which group they were allocated to (P<0.01). Subjects randomly allocated to the flexion-distraction group had significantly greater relief from pain than those allocated to the exercise program (P=0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that subjects categorized as chronic, with moderate to severe symptoms, improved most with the flexion-distraction protocol. Subjects categorized with recurrent pain and moderate to severe symptoms improved most with the exercise program. Patients with radiculopathy did significantly better with FD. There were no significant differences between groups on the Roland Morris and SF-36 outcome measures. Overall, flexion-distraction provided more pain relief than active exercise; however, these results varied based on stratification of patients with and without radiculopathy and with and without recurrent symptoms. The subgroup analysis provides a possible explanation for contrasting results among randomized clinical trials of chronic low back pain treatments and these results also provide guidance for future work in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

The load-carrying capacity of the ligamentous cervical spine sharply increased under a compressive follower load. This experiment explains how a whole cervical spine can be lordotic and yet withstand the large compressive loads estimated in vivo without damage or instability.

The results of our biomechanical studies have improved our understanding of the impact of cervical sagittal malalignment on pathomechanics of the cervical spine. We believe this improved understanding will assist in clinical decision-making.

No abstract

No abstract

Unilateral complete or even partial uncinatectomy can normalize lateral bending after TDR. Bilateral complete uncinatectomy is not necessary to restore lateral bending and may result in significantly increased range of motion in flexion-extension and axial rotation compared with intact values.