Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2014
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3195-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantification of continuous in vivo flexion–extension kinematics and intervertebral strains

Abstract: Purpose Healthy subjects performed lumbar flexion and were assessed by video fluoroscopy to measure the in vivo kinematics of the lower lumbar motion segments. Methods Fifteen healthy subjects (8 male, 7 female, 28 ± 10 years) performed lumbar flexion and extension back to neutral while their vertebrae were imaged. The sagittal plane vertebral margins of L3-S1 were identified. Lumbar angle, segmental margin strains, axial displacements, anterior-posterior (A-P) translations, and segmental rotations over the co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further information on the fluoroscopic data sets and extraction of vertebral motion is given in Nagel et al [14]. Because facet joint kinematics during flexion cannot be measured directly on the sagittal plane fluoroscopic images, vertebral body motion at the posterior disc margin was used to define facet joint motion by treating the vertebrae as rigid bodies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Further information on the fluoroscopic data sets and extraction of vertebral motion is given in Nagel et al [14]. Because facet joint kinematics during flexion cannot be measured directly on the sagittal plane fluoroscopic images, vertebral body motion at the posterior disc margin was used to define facet joint motion by treating the vertebrae as rigid bodies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 shows schematically how these inputs were obtained. Previously, our group published continuous in vivo vertebral kinematics during flexion and extension to quantify intervertebral margin strains [14], similar to data obtained by others [15,16]. From this data set, the facet joint motion was extrapolated from vertebral kinematics on sagittal plane.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Once the imaging area had been confirmed and the initial image (REST) had been focused, the volumetric scan commenced, and the data were captured within a few seconds. For the first bend case (BEND 1), the towel forceps were then depressed to a screw angle change ~5° (approximately half the range of maximum L4–L5 motion segment flexion 24 ), the initial image was refocused, and the volumetric scan was captured. This sequence was repeated for BEND 2 at ~10° (maximum L4–L5 motion segment flexion).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The bone-based approach involves imaging vertebral motion and then inferring FCL kinematics. The availability of single-fluoroscopic 24 or dual-fluoroscopic 18 measurements makes this approach attractive, in particular when combined with other imaging modalities and finite-element models, but it is still an indirect measure of FCL motion. The marker-based approach 16 involves suturing markers into the capsule to allow tracking of material points.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ROM of 6-13 deg, 1-5 deg, 2.9-11 deg and 2-3 deg in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and torsion, respectively, have been reported [44,45] (Table 2). When the whole spine is moved from a 20 deg extension to a 60 deg flexion posture, L2/3, L3/4, and L4/5 IVDs experience the largest ROM of approximately 9 deg, and L1/2 and L5/S1 experiences 7 deg and 6 deg, respectively [46,47].…”
Section: In Vivo Spine Biomechanicsmentioning
confidence: 99%