Prediction of Cervical Spinal Joint Loading and Secondary Motion Using a Musculoskeletal Multibody Dynamics Model Via Force-Dependent Kinematics Approach

Diao, Hao; Hua, Xueming; Dong, Jing; He, Xijing; Li, Dichen; Zhang, Jin

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002176

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, cervical spinal loading is affected by the surrounding soft tissues and mobile instantaneous center of rotations. 31 For reliable prediction of in vivo cervical spinal loading pattern, the established cervical spine MBD model should correspond to the natural biomechanical surrounding and realistic kinematics features. Traditionally, the amplitudes of ROMs at disk levels are used to characterize the kinematics features of cervical spine throughout the entire motion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A previously developed cervical spine MSK MBD model was used as a basis for the biomechanical analysis ( Figure 1). 31 This cervical spine model was constructed in the commercial software AnyBody Modeling System (version 6.0; AnyBody Technology, Aalborg, Denmark). In this model, intervertebral disks were defined as 6-degree-of-freedom (DOF) joints, allowing translation and rotation in all directions.…”

Section: Msk Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction of in vivo lower cervical spinal loading using musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model during the head flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation

Diao

Hua

Zhang

2018

Proc Inst Mech Eng H

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cervical spine diseases lead to a heavy economic burden to the individuals and societies. Moreover, frequent post-operative complications mean a higher risk of neck pain and revision. At present, controversy still exists for the etiology of spinal diseases and their associated complications. Knowledge of in vivo cervical spinal loading pattern is proposed to be the key to answer these questions. However, direct acquisition of in vivo cervical spinal loading remains challenging. In this study, a previously developed cervical spine musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model was utilized for spinal loading prediction. The in vivo dynamic segmental contributions to head motion and the out-of-plane coupled motion were both taken into account. First, model validation and sensitivity analysis of different segmental contributions to head motion were performed. For model validation, the predicted intervertebral disk compressive forces were converted into the intradiskal pressures and compared with the published experimental measurements. Significant correlations were found between the predicted values and the experimental results. Thus, the reliability and capability of the cervical spine model was ensured. Meanwhile, the sensitivity analysis indicated that cervical spinal loading is sensitive to different segmental contributions to head motion. Second, the compressive, shear and facet joint forces at C3-C6 disk levels were predicted, during the head flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. Under the head flexion/extension movement, asymmetric loading patterns of the intervertebral disk were obtained. In comparison, symmetrical typed loading patterns were found for the head lateral bending and axial rotation movements. However, the shear forces were dramatically increased during the head excessive extension and lateral bending. Besides, a nonlinear correlation was seen between the facet joint force and the angular displacement. In conclusion, dynamic cervical spinal loading was both intervertebral disk angle-dependent and level-dependent. Cervical spine musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model provides an attempt to comprehend the in vivo biomechanical surrounding of the human head-neck system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Msk Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of in vivo lower cervical spinal loading using musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model during the head flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation

Diao

Hua

Zhang

2018

Proc Inst Mech Eng H

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 a). The thickness and the area of articular cartilage were 0.5 mm and 80–100 mm 2 , respectively [ 13 – 15 ]. In the IVDs, the volume of the nucleus pulposus accounted for approximately 40%; the nucleus pulposus and annulus grounds were defined as incompressible hyperelastic fluid using a Moony–Rivlin model [ 16 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervical non-fusion using biomimetic artificial disc and vertebra complex: technical innovation and biomechanics analysis

Ouyang

et al. 2022

J Orthop Surg Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Changes in spinal mobility after vertebral fusion are important factors contributing to adjacent vertebral disease (ASD). As an implant for spinal non-fusion, the motion-preserving prosthesis is an effective method to reduce the incidence of ASD, but its deficiencies hamper the application in clinical. This study designs a novel motion-preserving artificial cervical disc and vertebra complex with an anti-dislocation mechanism (MACDVC-AM) and verifies its effect on the cervical spine. Methods The MACDVC-AM was designed on the data of healthy volunteers. The finite element intact model, fusion model, and MACDVC-AM model were constructed, and the range of motion (ROM) and stress of adjacent discs were compared. The biomechanical tests were performed on fifteen cervical specimens, and the stability index ROM (SI-ROM) were calculated. Results Compared with the intervertebral ROMs of the intact model, the MACDVC-AM model reduced by 28–70% in adjacent segments and increased by 26–54% in operated segments, but the fusion model showed the opposite result. In contrast to the fusion model, the MACDVC-AM model diminished the stress of adjacent intervertebral discs. In biomechanical tests, the MACDVC-AM group showed no significant difference with the ROMs of the intact group (p > 0.05). The SI-ROM of the MACDVC-AM group is negative but close to zero and showed no significant difference with the intact group (p > 0.05). Conclusions The MACDVC-AM was successfully designed. The results indicate that the MACDVC-AM can provide physiological mobility and stability, reduce adjacent intervertebral compensatory motion, and alleviate the stress change of adjacent discs, which contributes to protect adjacent discs and reduce the occurrence of ASD.

show abstract

“…Previously, experimental studies ( Panjabi et al, 1986 , 2001 ; Wheeldon et al, 2006 ; Ackland et al, 2011 ; Suderman and Vasavada, 2017 ) measured load-displacement behavior, muscle moment arm, or the range of motion in flexion, extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation. In addition, computational studies either based on the finite element ( Mesfar and Moglo, 2013 ; Bredbenner et al, 2014 ; Mustafy et al, 2014 ; Lasswell et al, 2017 ), inverse dynamic ( Anderst et al, 2013 ; Diao et al, 2018 , 2017 ), or forward dynamic models ( Sartori et al, 2014 ; Silvestros et al, 2019 ) investigated the effect of variation in geometrical or material properties on the cervical spine loads, motion, or muscle force. However, in an asymptomatic population, quantification of the differences in spinal loads, segment translations, or muscle activity in a neutral posture needs further attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity of the Cervical Disc Loads, Translations, Intradiscal Pressure, and Muscle Activity Due to Segmental Mass, Disc Stiffness, and Muscle Strength in an Upright Neutral Posture

Arshad

Schmidt

El‐Rich

et al. 2022

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Musculoskeletal disorders of the cervical spine have increased considerably in recent times. To understand the effects of various biomechanical factors, quantifying the differences in disc loads, motion, and muscle force/activity is necessary. The kinematic, kinetic, or muscle response may vary in a neutral posture due to interindividual differences in segmental mass, cervical disc stiffness, and muscle strength. Therefore, our study aimed to develop an inverse dynamic model of the cervical spine, estimate the differences in disc loads, translations, intradiscal pressure, and muscle force/activity in a neutral posture and compare these results with data available in the literature. A head–neck complex with nine segments (head, C1–T1) was developed with joints having three rotational and three translational degrees of freedom, 517 nonlinear ligament fibers, and 258 muscle fascicles. A sensitivity analysis was performed to calculate the effect of segmental mass (5th to 95th percentile), translational disc stiffness (0.5–1.5), and muscle strength (0.5–1.5) on the cervical disc loads (C2–C3 to C7–T1), disc translations, intradiscal pressure, and muscle force/activity in a neutral posture. In addition, two axial external load conditions (0 and 40 N) were also considered on the head. The estimated intradiscal pressures (0.2–0.56 MPa) at 0 N axial load were comparable to in vivo measurements found in the literature, whereas at 40 N, the values were 0.39–0.93 MPa. With increased segmental mass (5th to 95th), the disc loads, translations, and muscle forces/activities increased to 69% at 0 N and 34% at 40 N axial load. With increased disc stiffness (0.5–1.5), the maximum differences in axial (<1%) and shear loads (4%) were trivial; however, the translations were reduced by 67%, whereas the differences in individual muscle group forces/activities varied largely. With increased muscle strength (0.5–1.5), the muscle activity decreased by 200%. For 40 vs. 0 N, the differences in disc loads, translations, and muscle forces/activities were in the range of 52–129%. Significant differences were estimated in disc loads, translations, and muscle force/activity in the normal population, which could help distinguish between normal and pathological cervical spine conditions.

show abstract

Prediction of Cervical Spinal Joint Loading and Secondary Motion Using a Musculoskeletal Multibody Dynamics Model Via Force-Dependent Kinematics Approach

Abstract: N /A.

Cited by 13 publications

References 34 publications

Prediction of in vivo lower cervical spinal loading using musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model during the head flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation

Prediction of in vivo lower cervical spinal loading using musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model during the head flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation

Cervical non-fusion using biomimetic artificial disc and vertebra complex: technical innovation and biomechanics analysis

Sensitivity of the Cervical Disc Loads, Translations, Intradiscal Pressure, and Muscle Activity Due to Segmental Mass, Disc Stiffness, and Muscle Strength in an Upright Neutral Posture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About