Measurement of the total motion between two body segments—I. Analytical development

Kinzel, Gary L.; Hall, A. S.; Hillberry, B. M.

doi:10.1016/0021-9290(72)90022-x

Cited by 196 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12,13 In this study, relative motion of the scapula with respect to the fixed clavicle was represented using this concept, and the screw axis orientation and the rotation around this axis were calculated. 12 The screw axis orientation is affected by the magnitude of the rotation. When the rotation is large, the orientation is reliable and meaningful, but not when the rotation is small.…”

Section: Motion Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

3D kinematic analysis of the acromioclavicular joint during arm abduction using vertically open MRI

Sahara

Sugamoto

Murai³

et al. 2006

J. Orthop. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many researchers have evaluated the motions of the shoulder girdle, especially scapular and humeral motion. However, few reports exist that describe motions of the acromioclavicular joint. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the 3D kinematics of the acromioclavicular joint during arm abduction using 3D MR images obtained by a vertically open MRI. Fourteen shoulders of seven volunteers were examined in seven static positions from 08 to the maximum abduction in a seated position. 3D surface models of the clavicle and scapula were created, and the movements of the acromioclavicular joint from 08 to each position were calculated using the volume-based registration technique. From these calculations, the translations were evaluated and the rotational motions were analyzed using the concept of the screw axis. In the anteroposterior direction, the clavicle translated most posteriorly (À1.9 AE 1.3 mm) at 908 of abduction and most anteriorly (1.6 AE 2.7 mm) at maximum abduction. In the superoinferior direction, the clavicle translated slightly superiorly (0.9 AE 1.9 mm). When analyzing relative motion of the scapula with respect to the clavicle, the scapula generally rotated about a specific screw axis passing through the insertions of both the acromioclavicular and the coracoclavicular ligaments on the coracoid process. The average rotation was 34.9 AE 8.48. ß

show abstract

Section: Motion Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

3D kinematic analysis of the acromioclavicular joint during arm abduction using vertically open MRI

Sahara

Sugamoto

Murai³

et al. 2006

J. Orthop. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, there was considerably more variation in the HAM data for lateral bending and axial rotation and this is consistent with the much smaller ranges of motion present for those loading directions. Small ranges of motion decrease the stability of the mathematics used to calculate the HAM [15,20,42]. This may have negatively affected the ability to identify statistically significant differences in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Also, if the spine had been constrained to undergo the large pre-surgery rotations, after fusion of the large T8-L4 segment, the ligaments, annulus or mobile joints may have been damaged. The relatively smaller rotations may have had a deleterious effect on the variation in the HAM calculations, since HAM parameters become ill defined at small angles [20]. Finally, the pure moment and follower preload loading used is a simplification of in vivo spinal loading, but is in accordance with accepted contemporary methods for testing of spinal implants [12, 19, 24, 26-29, 40, 44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…because the HAM is an analogue for center of rotation and coupling) of the motion of these segments with the natural disc and with the TDRs [20]. For this analysis, a local coordinate system for each vertebra was defined to originate at the anterior, superior corner of the vertebral body and was aligned with the major anatomical axes: transverse, axial and sagittal.…”

Section: Helical Axis Of Motionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One method for evaluating the quality of spinal motion is the helical axis of motion (HAM) [20]. This is a threedimensional analog to the two-dimensional center of rotation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Adjacent level degeneration that occurs above and/or below long fusion constructs is a documented clinical problem that is widely believed to be associated with the considerable change in stiffness caused by the fusion. Some researchers have suggested that early degeneration at spinal joints adjacent to a fusion could be treated by implanting total disc replacements at these levels. It is thought that further degeneration could be prevented through the disc replacement's design aims to reproduce normal disc heights, kinematics and tissue loading. For this reason, there is a clinical need to evaluate if a total disc replacement can maintain both the quantity of motion (i.e. range) and the quality of motion (i.e. center of rotation and coupling) at segments adjacent to a long spinal fusion. The purpose of this study was to experimentally evaluate range of motion (ROM-the intervertebral motion measured) and helical axis of motion (HAM) changes due to one-and two-level Maverick total disc replacement (TDR) adjacent to a long spinal fusion. Methods Seven spine specimens (T8-S1) were used in this study (66 ± 19 years old, 3F/4 M). A continuous pure moment of ±5.0 Nm was applied to the specimen in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR), with a compressive follower preload of 400 N. The 5.0 Nm data were analyzed to evaluate the operated segment biomechanics at the level of the disc replacements. The data were also analyzed at lower moments using a modified version of Panjabi's proposed ''hybrid'' method to evaluate adjacent segment kinematics (intervertebral motion at the segments adjacent to the fusion) under identical overall (T8-S1) specimen rotations. The motion of each vertebra was monitored with an optoelectronic camera system. The biomechanical test was completed for (1) the intact condition and repeated after each surgical technique was applied to the specimen, (2) capsulotomy at L4-L5 and L5-S1, (3) T8-L4 fusion and capsulotomy at L4-L5 and L5-S1, (4) Maverick at L4-L5, and (5) Maverick at L5-S1. The capsulotomy was performed to allow measurement of facet joint loads in a companion study. Paired t tests were used to determine if differences in the kinematic parameters measured were significant. Holm-Sidak corrections for multiple comparisons were applied where appropriate. replacement (mean = 22 %, compared to the fused condition). Two-level Maverick implantation also tended to reduce L4-S1 ROM (mean 18, 7 and 31 % in FE, LB and AR, respectively, compared to the fused condition without TDR). Following TDR replacement, the HAM location tended to shift posteriorly in FE (at L5-S1), anteriorly in AR, and inferiorly in LB. However, although the abovementioned trends were observed, neither one-nor two-level TDR replacement showed statistically significant ROM or HAM change in any of the three directions. At the identical T8-S1 posture identified by the modified hybrid analysis, the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels underwent significant larger motions, relative to the overall speci...

show abstract

Human intervertebral disc: Structure and function

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review begins with a brief introduction in which the development, blood supply and innervation of the intervertebral disc is considered, particularly as these may influence the following sections on structure and function. The three regions within the disc--that is, the nucleus pulposus, annulus fibrosus, and cartilage end plates--are considered in some detail. There appears to be no distinct border between the central nucleus pulposus and the outer annulus fibrosus, the main difference being in their fibrous structure. The fluid space is important in the nutrition of the disc, showing plastic deformation and recovery characteristics. The structural elements, both macroscopically and microscopically, together with the biochemical elements, are intimately related to function. The intervertebral disc should not be though of as a homogeneous and static structure; it has a heterogeneous composition and responds dynamically to applied loads. Neither should it be considered as an isolated structure because it interacts with the vertebral bodies, together constituting the vertebral unit. Furthermore, changes within the disc can, and do, have dramatic effects on vertebral column kinematics. The intervertebral disc is not inactive; it is capable of self-maintenance; in injury it can repair itself and has considerable regenerative properties.

show abstract

Measurement of the total motion between two body segments—I. Analytical development

Cited by 196 publications

References 2 publications

3D kinematic analysis of the acromioclavicular joint during arm abduction using vertically open MRI

3D kinematic analysis of the acromioclavicular joint during arm abduction using vertically open MRI

Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion

Human intervertebral disc: Structure and function

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About