2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2009.07.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surgical instrumentation for the in vivo determination of human lumbar spinal segment stiffness and viscoelasticity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The measurement methods were diverse and thus were categorised for comparison by separating them into those that measured stiffness via practitioner palpation and judgment (n = 13, Table 1) and those that used instrumentation (n = 62), and further subdividing instrumented measurement methods into three types. The instrumented studies were categorised into those that measured accessory movement at a particular spinal level (n = 42, Table 2), those that measured physiological movement of the spine with or without measurement of muscle activity (n = 13) (Brown et al, 2006;Brown and McGill, 2008Cholewicki et al, 1999Cholewicki et al, , 2000Drake et al, 2008;Essendrop et al, 2002;Gombatto et al, 2008a,b;Green et al, 2002;Hodges et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2006), and those that measured stiffness intraoperatively (n = 7) (Ambrosetti-Giudici et al, 2009;Brown et al, 2002a;Ebara et al, 1992;Hasegawa et al, 2008;Krenn et al, 2008;Nathan and Keller, 1994;Takano et al, 2006). Thirty-seven of these studies addressed factors that affect the instrumented measurement of spinal stiffness (Table 3), with 9 including participants with spinal pain and 28 including asymptomatic participants.…”
Section: Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The measurement methods were diverse and thus were categorised for comparison by separating them into those that measured stiffness via practitioner palpation and judgment (n = 13, Table 1) and those that used instrumentation (n = 62), and further subdividing instrumented measurement methods into three types. The instrumented studies were categorised into those that measured accessory movement at a particular spinal level (n = 42, Table 2), those that measured physiological movement of the spine with or without measurement of muscle activity (n = 13) (Brown et al, 2006;Brown and McGill, 2008Cholewicki et al, 1999Cholewicki et al, , 2000Drake et al, 2008;Essendrop et al, 2002;Gombatto et al, 2008a,b;Green et al, 2002;Hodges et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2006), and those that measured stiffness intraoperatively (n = 7) (Ambrosetti-Giudici et al, 2009;Brown et al, 2002a;Ebara et al, 1992;Hasegawa et al, 2008;Krenn et al, 2008;Nathan and Keller, 1994;Takano et al, 2006). Thirty-seven of these studies addressed factors that affect the instrumented measurement of spinal stiffness (Table 3), with 9 including participants with spinal pain and 28 including asymptomatic participants.…”
Section: Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, a number of different measurement devices have been developed with the aim of measuring segmental stiffness at a specific level [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]15,[20][21][22]. The present study showed that these methods can yield substantial overestimates, especially when adjacent segments have a high stiffness.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…However, the assessment of segmental stiffness in vivo remains problematic. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiographs can visualize degeneration, and kinetic MRI and flexion-extension radiographs can show altered motion in degenerated segments [6][7][8], they do not provide information on segmental mechanical properties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Brown et al [6,7] and Hasegewa et al [8] developed motorized systems where distractor arms exhibit a translation along a rail. Krenn et al [9] recently modified a spinal spreader to measure force and displacement between the spinous processes, which was later further developed by Ambrosetti-Giudici et al [10]. All of the above mentioned setups performed a distraction between the spinous processes in the sagittal plane to induce a flexion and assumed a planar loading and motion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%