Load-displacement-time characteristics of articular cartilage

Higginson, G. R.; Litchfield, M. R.; Snaith, Jane E.

doi:10.1016/0020-7403(76)90044-8

Cited by 45 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Higginson et al [16] observed negligible fluid outflow from cartilage when tested at physiological loading rates. This finding was confirmed by Oloyede and Broom [17] and DiSilvestro et al [18].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coupled rotations in the lumbar spine—are these a consequence of passive spinal anatomy?

Little¹,

Pearcy²,

Adam³

2007

Modelling in Medicine and Biology VII

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have found that primary rotations in the lumbar spine are accompanied by coupled out-of-plane rotations, and abnormal coupled rotations have been associated with spinal pathology. However, it is not clear whether this accompanying rotation is due to passive (discs, ligaments and facet joints) or active (muscles) spinal anatomy. The aim of this study was to use a finite element model of the lumbar spine to determine three-dimensional rotations in the loaded spine, due to passive spinal anatomy alone. Computed tomography data for the bony anatomy of the visible man lumbar spine was used to generate a 3D osseoligamentous finite element model. Attachment origins and ligament stiffnesses for the major spinal ligaments were based on data reported in the literature. Loading conditions simulated physiologically observed rotations in the six degrees of rotational freedom, applied about in vivo centres of rotation. Model predictions were validated by comparison of intra-discal pressure and primary rotations with in vivo data and these showed good agreement. The computed coupled rotations for flexion, extension and axial rotation were similar to the in vivo results, with rotations within the first standard deviation of the reported in vivo data and in the same direction. Analysis of lateral bending consistently demonstrated higher coupled axial rotations than were observed in vivo, however, these were in the same direction as observed in vivo. The observed similarity in computed and in vivo nucleus pressures and primary rotations at each spinal level validated the models' ability to predict the in vivo response of the osseoligamentous lumbar spine. Coupled rotations due to primary motions in the sagittal and transverse planes appear to be caused by the passive spinal anatomy. However, for lateral bending, data for the computed coupled rotations suggest that the osseoligamentous anatomy alone does not account for the observed coupled rotation in vivo, and the muscles play a key role in the coupled response of the spine under this motion.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coupled rotations in the lumbar spine—are these a consequence of passive spinal anatomy?

Little¹,

Pearcy²,

Adam³

2007

Modelling in Medicine and Biology VII

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note also that the permeability of the tissue decreases when the pore volume decreases [24,33]. Generally, k is a positive definite and symmetric tensor.…”

Section: Linear Biphasic Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

Linear Transversely Isotropic Biphasic Model for Articular Cartilage Layer

Argatov¹,

Mishuris²

2015

Advanced Structured Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Sect. 5.1, we develop a linear biphasic theory for the case of a transversely isotropic elastic solid matrix with transverse isotropy of permeability. In Sects. 5.2 and 5.3, we consider the linear biphasic models of confined and unconfined compression, respectively, for the biphasic stress relaxation and the biphasic creep tests. Finally, in Sect. 5.4 we outline the biphasic poroviscoelastic model, which accounts for the inherent viscoelasticity of the solid matrix.

show abstract

“…In the literature many material models for articular cartilage can be found. These models range from relatively simple, including the biphasic nature of the tissue (Higginson et al, 1976;Chen et al 1997), to models that include descriptions of all major individual components of the cartilage (Mow and Guo 2002;Ateshian et al 2013;Manzano et al 2014a;Manzano et al 2014b;Sun et al 2004). However, the main parameters to consider in these simulations remain still obscure since the requirements of a material model are highly dependent on the particular question under research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%