Estimation of Trunk Muscle Parameters for a Biomechanical Model by Age, Height and Weight

Abstract

Estimation of Trunk Muscle Parameters for a Biomechanical Model by Age, Height and Weight: Akihiko Seo, et al. Department of Intelligent Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Technology—To establish more accurate equations for estimating the moment arm length and cross‐sectional area of the erector spinae and rectus abdominis muscles, the effects of height, weight and age on those muscles were analyzed by using a high‐order polynomial equation. Data on the moment arm length and cross‐sectional area at L3/ 4 were obtained from MRI images of 152 males and 98 females. The statistical model used in this study has any combination of up to third‐order independent variables for age, height and weight. The effective independent variables were selected by the forward step method of multiple regression analyses. The results of multiple regression analyses showed that the polynomial equations for the moment arm length of erector spinae in both genders, and that for the rectus abdominis in males, contained all three variables of age, height and weight. That for the moment arm length of female rectus abdominis contained the variables of weight and age. The multiple correlation coefficients of the erector spinae and rectus abdominis were 0.355 and 0.650 for males, 0.364 and 0.411 for females, respectively. The equations for the cross‐sectional area of the erector spinae in both genders, as well as that for male rectus abdominis contained only one variable (weight). The multiple correlation coefficients of the cross‐sectional area of the erector spinae were 0.576 for males and 0.469 for females. The cross‐sectional area of the female rectus abdominis had no effective variables.

Morphological investigation of low back erector spinae muscle: Historical data populations

“…This agrees with the studies of Bogduk et al (1992), Lee et al (2011), McGill et al (1993, Parkkola et al (1992), and Reid and Costigan (1987) and in the range of Cooper et al (1992) and Guzik et al (1996). However, these are smaller than some previous studies (Lee et al, 2006;Wood et al, 1996) and larger than most previous studies (Anderson et al, 2012;Chaffin et al, 1990;Delp et al, 2001;Han et al, 1992;Jorgensen et al, 2003;Kamaz et al, 2007;Kang et al, 2007;Lin et al, 2001;Marras et al, 2001;McGill et al, 1988;Niemelainen et al, 2011;Reid and Costigan, 1985;Seo et al, 2003;Tracy et al, 1989;Tsuang et al, 1993;Tveit et al, 1994). The differences may be due to differences in sampling (sample size, subject characteristics, etc.…”

“…The average subject height and weight in the present study are larger than most previous studies (Han et al, 1992;Kang et al, 2007;Lin et al, 2001;McGill et al, 1988;Seo et al, 2003;Tsuang et al, 1993), which may explain why larger ESM CSAs were observed in the present study. Besides, Wood et al (1996) studied larger male subjects (BMI was 28.6 kg/m 2 ) compared to the present study (BMI was 26.2 kg/m 2 ) and they reported larger ESM CSAs, as expected, than the present study.…”

“…However, it is not easy to conclude that the differences in ESM CSAs are due only to subject anthropometrics. Han et al (1992) [Japanese], Kang et al (2007) [Korean], Lin et al (2001) and Seo et al (2003) [Japanese], and Tsuang et al (1993) [possibly Taiwanese] included Asian subjects in their studies while the present study included a sample of North American subjects with unknown ethnicity. Subject ethnicity may be a confounding factor for muscle CSA differences.…”

“…Delp et al (2001) studied cadaveric subjects, which may limit results to be extrapolated to live subjects. Several previous studies quantified ESM size at a single level (i.e., at the L3/L4 (Seo et al, 2003), at the L4 (Cooper et al, 1992), at the L4/L5 (Lee et al, 2006;McGill et al, 1988;Parkkola et al, 1992;Wood et al, 1996), at the L5 (Lee et al, 2011), at the L5/S1 (Lin et al, 2001;Tracy et al, 1989)) or provided an average number for several levels (Delp et al, 2001;Reid and Costigan, 1985). However, having lumbar data from several vertebrae or inter-vertebral disc (IVD) levels may provide better understanding of the muscle structure on the low back region.…”

Ultrasound Measurements of the Lateral Abdominal Muscle Thicknesses in Girls With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

“…Also previous studies on healthy subjects have shown the correlation between the body weight and the ultrasound measurements of the lateral abdominal muscles (22,30,31). In the current study age, weight, and body mass index of two groups had no significant difference.…”