Dynamic Angular Three-Dimensional Measurement of Multisegmental Thoracolumbar Motion In Vivo

Gercek, Erol; Hartmann, Frank; Kühn, Sebastian; Degreif, J.; Rommens, Pol Maria; Rudig, L.

doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31818096ea

Cited by 30 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thoracolumbar (T11-S1) rotations in each task are partitioned between its motion segments; 6.0% at the T11-T12, 10.9% at the T12-L1, 14.1% at the L1-L2, 13.2% at the L2-L3, 16.9% at the L3-L4, 20.1% at the L4-L5, and finally 18.7% at the L5-S1 (Gercek et al, 2008;Ghezelbash et al, 2016;Hajibozorgi and Arjmand, 2015).…”

Section: Full Factorial Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model

Ghezelbash

Shirazi‐Adl

Arjmand

et al. 2016

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five symmetric sagittal loading conditions were considered, and main effect plots and analyses of variance were employed to identify influential parameters. In all 5 tasks simulated, BW (98.9% in compression and 96.1% in shear) had the greatest effect on spinal loads at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels followed by sex (0.7% in compression and 2.1% in shear), BH (0.4% in compression and 1.5% in shear) and finally age (<5.4%). At identical BH and BW, spinal loads in females were slightly greater than those in males by ~4.7% in compression and ~8.7% in shear. In tasks with no loads in hands, BW-normalized spinal loads further increased with BW highlighting the exponential increase in spinal loads with BW that indicates the greater risk of back disorders especially in obese individuals. Uneven distribution of weight in obese subjects, with more 17 BW placed at the lower trunk, further (though slightly <7.5%) increased spinal loads.

show abstract

Section: Full Factorial Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model

Ghezelbash

Shirazi‐Adl

Arjmand

et al. 2016

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…C adaver specimens, 19 various imaging techniques, 17,20,24 and in vivo surgically inserted pins 4,6,21,23 have all been used to understand the complexities of segmental spinal motion. Each method has contributed to our understanding of the motion that occurs at the spine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many have tried to understand the complexities of lumbar spine motion and to investigate the relationships between lumbar spine motion and LBP by measuring segmental lumbar motion using radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as invasive procedures using surgically inserted pins. 4,6,7,[21][22][23] Although these imaging techniques and invasive procedures have resulted in a better understanding of segmental lumbar spine motion, some are costly, such as MRI, and some require ionizing radiation, such as X-ray and fluoroscopy, and surgical procedures have limited use because of the invasive nature of the technique.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of Segmental Lumbar Spine Flexion and Extension Using Ultrasound Imaging

Chleboun¹,

Amway²,

Hill³

et al. 2012

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The position of the joint centers in the IS model was derived from the FE model in the following way: small moments of 1 Nm in both extension and flexion were applied to the FE model, and the geometric average of the two helical axes for these two motions was used. In this IS model, the overall flexion or extension angles were first defined, and the IVRs were distributed based on the continuous dynamic motion measurements of Wong et al [23] and Gercek et al [9] replacing the spine rhythm usually used in AnyBody software.…”

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrepancies in anthropometric parameters between different models affect intervertebral rotations when loading finite element models with muscle forces from inverse static analyses

Zhu¹,

Rohlmann

2014

Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In only a few published finite element (FE) simulations have muscle forces been applied to the spine. Recently, muscle forces determined using an inverse static (IS) model of the spine were transferred to a spinal FE model, and the effect of methodical parameters was investigated. However, the sensitivity of anthropometric differences between FE and IS models, such as body height and spinal orientation, was not considered. The aim of this sensitivity study was to determine the influence of those differences on the intervertebral rotations (IVRs) following the transfer of muscle forces from an IS model to a FE model. Muscle forces were estimated for 20° flexion and 10° extension of the upper body using an inverse static musculoskeletal model. These forces were subsequently transferred to a nonlinear FE model of the spino-pelvic complex, which includes 243 muscle fascicles. Deviations of body height (±10 cm), spinal orientation in the sagittal plane (±10°), and body weight (±10 kg) between both models were intentionally generated, and their influences on IVRs were determined. The changes in each factor relative to their corresponding reference value of the IS model were calculated. Deviations in body height, spinal orientation, and body weight resulted in maximum changes in the IVR of 19.2%, 26% and 4.2%, respectively, relative to T12-S1 IVR. When transferring muscle forces from an IS to a FE model, it is crucial that both models have the same spinal orientation and height. Additionally, the body weight should be equal in both models.

show abstract

Dynamic Angular Three-Dimensional Measurement of Multisegmental Thoracolumbar Motion In Vivo

Cited by 30 publications

References 33 publications

Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model

Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model

Measurement of Segmental Lumbar Spine Flexion and Extension Using Ultrasound Imaging

Discrepancies in anthropometric parameters between different models affect intervertebral rotations when loading finite element models with muscle forces from inverse static analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About