ISSLS PRIZE IN BIOENGINEERING SCIENCE 2018: dynamic imaging of degenerative spondylolisthesis reveals mid-range dynamic lumbar instability not evident on static clinical radiographs

Dombrowski, Malcolm E.; Rynearson, Bryan; LeVasseur, Clarissa M.; Adgate, Zach; Donaldson, William F.; Lee, Joon Y.; Aiyangar, Ameet; Anderst, William

doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5489-0

Cited by 40 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our system's overall RMSE at the cervical spine ranged between 0.21-0.49 mm and 0.42-1.80˚and at the lumbar spine ranged between 0.35-1.17 mm and 0.49-1.06˚for flexion and lateral bending motions. Results for both of these validations are reasonable given the results of previous works [14,16,20,21], although differences in methods, analysis, and subjects make direct comparison challenging and limited. Anderst et al examined cervical spine 2D/3D shape-matching against RSA in human subjects undergoing cervical spine fusion and found an average segmental tracking precision of 0.19 mm for non-fused bones and an average intersegmental tracking precision of 0.4 mm and 1.1˚for all bones including fused bones for flexion/extension and axial rotation [16].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…The present study found comparable values to Anderst et al; however, both precision and RMSE values were higher than McDonald et al Potential differences in bead placement, testing setup, and differences between human and ovine anatomy make the results difficult to compare directly, but may explain some of the difference between studies. Previous lumbar spine 2D/3D shape-matching versus RSA validation works have been done by Wu et al in a cadaveric model and Dombrowski et al in vivo [20,21]. Wu et al examined an MRI bone model 2D/3D shape-matching at five positions throughout flexion and extension and found the average biplane shape-matching bias of a single segment/bone to be within 0.30 mm and 0.74˚and precision to be within 0.39 mm and 0.83˚across all planes of motion when compared to RSA [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, developing an automated 2D/3D shape-matching algorithm is critical to utilizing biplane radiography. To-date, only a few labs have demonstrated the feasibility and validity of shape-matching at the spine [14,16,[19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validation of an automated shape-matching algorithm for biplane radiographic spine osteokinematics and radiostereometric analysis error quantification

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biplane radiography and associated shape-matching provides non-invasive, dynamic, 3D osteo-and arthrokinematic analysis. Due to the complexity of data acquisition, each system should be validated for the anatomy of interest. The purpose of this study was to assess our system's acquisition methods and validate a custom, automated 2D/3D shape-matching algorithm relative to radiostereometric analysis (RSA) for the cervical and lumbar spine. Additionally, two sources of RSA error were examined via a Monte Carlo simulation: 1) static bead centroid identification and 2) dynamic bead tracking error. Tantalum beads were implanted into a cadaver for RSA and cervical and lumbar spine flexion and lateral bending were passively simulated. A bead centroid identification reliability analysis was performed and a vertebral validation block was used to determine bead tracking accuracy. Our system's overall root mean square error (RMSE) for the cervical spine ranged between 0.21-0.49mm and 0.42-1.80˚and the lumbar spine ranged between 0.35-1.17mm and 0.49-1.06˚. The RMSE associated with RSA ranged between 0.14-0.69mm and 0.96-2.33˚for bead centroid identification and 0.25-1.19mm and 1.69-4.06˚for dynamic bead tracking. The results of this study demonstrate our system's ability to accurately quantify segmental spine motion. Additionally, RSA errors should be considered when interpreting biplane validation results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of an automated shape-matching algorithm for biplane radiographic spine osteokinematics and radiostereometric analysis error quantification

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When L4‐L5 rotation varied by ±3° (the largest inter‐rater error), IDP changed by less than 10%, from its reference value of 1.86 MPa to 2.06 MPa (for an error of 3° in flexion) and to 1.78 MPa (for an error of 3° in extension). Recent studies, however, have reported considerably smaller errors of ~0.4° to 0.9° and 0.2° to 0.3 mm in MR‐ or CT‐based measurements of vertebral rotations and translations, respectively . Our FE model, when driven by kinematics from more accurate recent imaging techniques, is therefore expected to generate more reliable predictions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Recent studies, however, have reported considerably smaller errors of~0.4°to 0.9°and 0.2°to 0.3 mm in MR-or CT-based measurements of vertebral rotations and translations, respectively. 10,11,[34][35][36] Our FE model, when driven by kinematics from more accurate recent imaging techniques, is therefore expected to generate more reliable predictions.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subject‐specific loads on the lumbar spine in detailed finite element models scaled geometrically and kinematic‐driven by radiography images

Dehghan-Hamani

Arjmand

Shirazi‐Adl

2019

Numer Methods Biomed Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional load‐control musculoskeletal and finite element (FE) models of the spine fail to accurately predict in vivo intervertebral joint loads due mainly to the simplifications and assumptions when estimating redundant trunk muscle forces. An alternative powerful protocol that bypasses the calculation of muscle forces is to drive the detailed FE models by image‐based in vivo displacements. Development of subject‐specific models, however, both involves the risk of extensive radiation exposures while imaging in supine and upright postures and is time consuming in terms of the reconstruction of the vertebrae, discs, ligaments, and facets geometries. This study therefore aimed to introduce a remedy for the development of subject‐specific FE models by scaling the geometry of an existing detailed FE model of the T12‐S1 lumbar spine. Five subject‐specific scaled models were driven by their own radiography image‐based displacements in order to predict joint loads, ligament forces, facet joint forces, and disc fiber strains during relaxed upright as well as moderate flexion and extension tasks. The predicted intradiscal pressures were found in adequate agreement with in vivo data for upright, flexion, and extension tasks. There were however large intersubject variations in the estimated joint loads and facet forces.

show abstract

Changes in intervertebral sagittal alignment of the cervical spine from supine to upright

Oyekan

LeVasseur

Shaw

et al. 2022

Journal Orthopaedic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cervical sagittal alignment is a critical component of successful surgical outcomes. Unrecognized differences in intervertebral alignment between supine and upright positions may affect clinical outcomes; however, these differences have not been quantified. Sixty-four patients scheduled to undergo one or two-level cervical arthrodesis for symptomatic pathology from C4-C5 to C6-C7, and forty-seven controls were recruited. Upright sagittal alignment was obtained through biplane radiographic imaging and measured using a validated process with accuracy better than 1°in rotation. Supine alignment was obtained from computed tomography scans. Coordinate systems used to measure supine and upright alignment were identical. Distances between adjacent bony endplates were measured to calculate disc height in each position. For both patients and controls, the C1-C2, C2-C3, and C3-C4 motion segments were in more lordosis when upright as compared with supine (all p < 0.001). However, the C4-C5, C5-C6, and C6-C7 motion segments were in less lordosis when upright as compared with supine (all p ≤ 0.004). There was an interaction between group and position at the C1-C2 (p = 0.002) and C2-C3 (p = 0.001) motion segments, with the controls demonstrating a greater increase in lordosis at both motion segments when moving from supine to upright. The results indicate that cervical motion segment alignment changes between supine and upright positioning, those changes differ among motion segments, and cervical pathology affects the magnitude of these changes. Clinical Significance:Surgeons should be mindful of the differences in alignment between supine and upright imaging and the implications they may have on clinical outcomes.

show abstract

ISSLS PRIZE IN BIOENGINEERING SCIENCE 2018: dynamic imaging of degenerative spondylolisthesis reveals mid-range dynamic lumbar instability not evident on static clinical radiographs

Abstract: Level V data These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Cited by 40 publications

References 33 publications

Validation of an automated shape-matching algorithm for biplane radiographic spine osteokinematics and radiostereometric analysis error quantification

Validation of an automated shape-matching algorithm for biplane radiographic spine osteokinematics and radiostereometric analysis error quantification

Subject‐specific loads on the lumbar spine in detailed finite element models scaled geometrically and kinematic‐driven by radiography images

Changes in intervertebral sagittal alignment of the cervical spine from supine to upright

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About