Gender variation of human spinal and paraspinal structures

Cooper, Robert G.; Holli, S.; Jayson, M. I. V.

doi:10.1016/0268-0033(92)90025-y

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Comparisons of the present study with studies measuring CSAs at the IVD level are presented in Table 6. Anderson et al (2012), Bogduk et al (1992), Cooper et al (1992), Delp et al (2001), Guzik et al (1992), Lee et al (2011), Marras et al (2001), McGill et al (1993, and Costigan (1985, 1987), on the other hand, calculated ESM CSAs at a vertebral body level. Therefore, it is not possible to directly compare the results of the present study with those studies since measurement locations are "offset."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Gungor

Tang

Sesek

et al. 2015

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Gungor

Tang

Sesek

et al. 2015

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to movement diVerences relating to structural diVerences human bone density (Cooper et al 1992) and muscle mass diVer between genders (Janssen et al 2000). The latter results from the larger cross sectional area (CSA), mainly of Type 2 Wbers in men (Miller et al 1993;Simoneau and Bouchard 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Gender specific activation patterns of trunk muscles during whole body tilt

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender specific differences as evidenced in both anthropometric data and physical performance of healthy persons have been broadly demonstrated. Recently advancements in surface electromyography (SEMG) have shown possible differences in men's and women's muscle coordination patterns. However, quantitative information about gender related muscle co-ordination patterns are rare. This investigation was carried out to both verify if trunk muscle SEMG amplitude-force relationship differs between men and women and refine techniques of measurement and data analysis using SEMG. Thirty-one healthy volunteers (16 women, 15 men) were investigated during whole body tilt at angles from 5 degrees to 90 degrees (from quasi vertical to horizontal position). Subjects had to maintain body in body axis while their lower body was fixed and the upper body remained unsupported. SEMG was taken from five different trunk muscles of both sides simultaneously. At corresponding tilt angles women exhibited higher amplitude levels of their abdominal muscles in comparison to men, who were characterized by higher back muscle amplitudes. Abdominal muscles showed a non-linear SEMG amplitude-force relationship but differed between genders with more linearity in women. Back muscles showed a linear amplitude-force relationship with no differences between genders. Women were characterized by higher levels of co-contraction of all investigated muscles. The data are in accordance with histological investigations, which already proved specific fiber distribution patterns in both abdominal and back muscles and gender related differences in relative area of Type 1 fibers of back muscles. The observed differences in SEMG-force relationship for the abdominal muscles remain hypothetical because of lack of histological information.

show abstract

“…18,53,121,139 Anthropometric characteristics such as spinal dimensions, posture, trunk weight, center of mass, muscle torques, and cross-sectional area differ between men and women, and these factors may influence dynamic trunk stability. 23,33,41,56,81 Authors have proposed theories suggesting that local trunk muscles serve a greater dynamic segmental spinal stability and proprioception function, while global muscles provide composite stability, large movements, and torque production. 21,54 Developing appropriate global and local trunk muscle activation strategies in combination with efficient use of gluteus maximus, latissimus dorsi, and extremity fascial connections is vital to back injury prevention, particularly among women.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%