Apportionment of lumbar L2–S1 rotation across individual motion segments during a dynamic lifting task

Aiyangar, Ameet; Zheng, Liying; Anderst, William; Zhang, Xudong

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.08.022

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They did not discuss whether motion was related to the lifter’s standing vertebral angles. More recently Aiyangar and colleagues 44 used dynamic stereo-X-ray imaging, combined with subject-specific bone models constructed from CT images, to track intersegmental kinematics during the extension phase of lifting in 11 healthy volunteers. Although they provide valuable insights into segmental contribution to internal spine movement during lifting, they do not assess how this relates to the participant’s baseline curvature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in lifting kinematics related to individual intrinsic lumbar curvature: an investigation in healthy adults

Pavlova

Meakin

Cooper

et al. 2018

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveLifting postures are frequently implicated in back pain. We previously related responses to a static load with intrinsic spine shape, and here we investigate the role of lumbar spine shape in lifting kinematics.MethodsThirty healthy adults (18–65 years) performed freestyle, stoop and squat lifts with a weighted box (6–15 kg, self-selected) while being recorded by Vicon motion capture. Internal spine shape was characterised using statistical shape modelling (SSM) from standing mid-sagittal MRIs. Associations were investigated between spine shapes quantified by SSM and peak flexion angles.ResultsTwo SSM modes described variations in overall lumbar curvature (mode 1 (M1), 55% variance) and the evenness of curvature distribution (mode 2 (M2), 12% variance). M1 was associated with greater peak pelvis (r=0.38, p=0.04) and smaller knee flexion (r=–0.40, p=0.03) angles; individuals with greater curviness preferred to lift with a stooped lifting posture. This was confirmed by analysis of those individuals with very curvy or very straight spines (|M1|>1 SD). There were no associations between peak flexion angles and mode scores in stoop or squat trials (p>0.05). Peak flexion angles were positively correlated between freestyle and squat trials but not between freestyle and stoop or squat and stoop, indicating that individuals adjusted knee flexion while maintaining their preferred range of lumbar flexion and that ‘squatters’ adapted better to different techniques than ‘stoopers’.ConclusionSpinal curvature affects preferred lifting styles, and individuals with curvier spines adapt more easily to different lifting techniques. Lifting tasks may need to be tailored to an individual’s lumbar spine shape.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in lifting kinematics related to individual intrinsic lumbar curvature: an investigation in healthy adults

Pavlova

Meakin

Cooper

et al. 2018

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lumbar spine is a kinetic chain that requires the sharing of motion between levels during bending. Various aspects of intervertebral motion sharing have been investigated in cadaveric studies [17][18][19] in plain radiographic studies in vivo [20][21][22][23][24] and in continuous radiographic studies [3,5,8,20,[25][26][27][28][29][30]. Most of these have studied motion onset and displacement; however, two that studied displacement [4,24] and one that studied pattern variations [29], found differences between patients with CNSLBP and controls.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uneven intervertebral motion sharing is related to disc degeneration and is greater in patients with chronic, non-specific low back pain: an in vivo, cross-sectional cohort comparison of intervertebral dynamics using quantitative fluoroscopy

Breen

2017

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Changes in intervertebral angle from the participants’ starting position are small at the beginning and end of their bending sequences, thus, these data points are close to the precision limit of the QF system (0.52°) [ 8 ]. Therefore, only the middle 80% of movement was considered for analysis to remove error amplification during the initial and final parts of movement [ 6 , 14 ]. The range of proportional intervertebral movement was calculated for each image in the sequence (Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigator analytic repeatability of two new intervertebral motion biomarkers for chronic, nonspecific low back pain in a cohort of healthy controls

Breen

Mior

et al. 2020

Chiropr Man Therap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Understanding the mechanisms underlying chronic, nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) is essential to advance personalized care and identify the most appropriate intervention. Recently, two intervertebral motion biomarkers termed “Motion Sharing Inequality” (MSI) and “Motion Sharing Variability” (MSV) have been identified for CNSLBP using quantitative fluoroscopy (QF). The aim of this study was to conduct intra- and inter-investigator analytic repeatability studies to determine the extent to which investigator error affects their measurement in clinical studies. Methods A cross-sectional cohort study was conducted using the image sequences of 30 healthy controls who received QF screening during passive recumbent flexion motion. Two independent investigators analysed the image sequences for MSI and MSV from October to November 2018. Intra and inter- investigator repeatability studies were performed using intraclass correlations (ICC), standard errors of measurement (SEM) and minimal differences (MD). Results Intra-investigator ICCs were 0.90 (0.81,0.95) (SEM 0.029) and 0.78 (0.59,0.89) (SEM 0.020) for MSI and MSV, respectively. Inter-investigator ICCs 0.93 (0.86,0.97) (SEM 0.024) and 0.55 (0.24,0.75) (SEM 0.024). SEMs for MSI and MSV were approximately 10 and 30% of their group means respectively. The MDs for MSI for intra- and inter-investigator repeatability were 0.079 and 0.067, respectively and for MSV 0.055 and 0.067. Conclusions MSI demonstrated substantial intra- and inter-investigator repeatability, suggesting that investigator input has a minimal influence on its measurement. MSV demonstrated moderate intra-investigator reliability and fair inter-investigator repeatability. Confirmation in patients with CNSLBP is now required.

show abstract

Apportionment of lumbar L2–S1 rotation across individual motion segments during a dynamic lifting task

Cited by 20 publications

References 41 publications

Variation in lifting kinematics related to individual intrinsic lumbar curvature: an investigation in healthy adults

Variation in lifting kinematics related to individual intrinsic lumbar curvature: an investigation in healthy adults

Uneven intervertebral motion sharing is related to disc degeneration and is greater in patients with chronic, non-specific low back pain: an in vivo, cross-sectional cohort comparison of intervertebral dynamics using quantitative fluoroscopy

Investigator analytic repeatability of two new intervertebral motion biomarkers for chronic, nonspecific low back pain in a cohort of healthy controls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About