Thoracolumbar spine model with articulated ribcage for the prediction of dynamic spinal loading

Ignasiak, Dominika; Dendorfer, Sebastian; Ferguson, Stephen J.

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.10.010

Cited by 79 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, Eq. (2) has only been validated for the lumbar spine (Dreischarf et al, 2013), and its application to the thoracic spine is still experimental (Hwang et al, 2016, Ignasiak et al, 2016. In the future, regarding the correction coefficient, research that includes the thoracic spine is necessary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used the commercial software AnyBody Modeling System (AMS.v.6.0.5.4379) (AnyBody, Technology, Alborg, Denmark) to construct the thoracolumbar spine model with different muscle paths and validate the accuracy of the predicted IDP for three-dimensional inverse dynamics analysis (Damsgaard et al, 2006). The partitioning of the thoracolumbar vertebrae was based on the generic lumbar spine model (de Zee et al, 2007) provided by the AnyBody Managed Model Repository (AMMR, version 1.4), and the thorax portion of the model was partitioned as in previous studies (Hwang et al, 2016, Ignasiak et al, 2016.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Higuchi, Komatsu, Iida, Iwami and Shimada, Journal of Biomechanical Science and Engineering, Vol.14, No.1 (2019) [DOI: 10.1299/jbse.18-00432] Several studies using a thoracolumbar spine model with a partitioned thoracic spine and ribs and dynamical evaluations have been reported (Andriacchi et al, 1974, Keller et al, 2003, Andre et al, 2006, Briggs et al, 2007, Iyer et al, 2010, Tho, 2010, Bruno et al, 2015, Kim et al, 2016. For example, Ignasiak et al (2016). constructed a movable thoracolumbar spine model to analyze the IDP, and the activity and tension of trunk muscles during flexion; however, the placement and geometry of the trunk muscles were not defined in detail because all of the muscle paths of the model were linear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Construction and validation under dynamic conditions of a novel thoracolumbar spine model with defined muscle paths using the wrapping method

Higuchi

Komatsu

Iida

et al. 2019

JBSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed novel trunk musculoskeletal models with detailed muscle paths for predicting the thoracolumbar load, and validated the developed models under dynamic loading and various postures. Two types of musculoskeletal models with different paths of the trunk muscles were constructed: a Via-Point type (with linear muscles) and Wrapping type (with curved muscles along ellipsoids). We predicted the intradiscal pressure (IDP) with the models and compared the results with literature values. The IDP predicted using the wrapping-type model had an extremely strong correlation with IDP measurements from the thoracic spine. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of more accurate muscle paths in musculoskeletal models for predicting the thoracolumbar load.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Construction and validation under dynamic conditions of a novel thoracolumbar spine model with defined muscle paths using the wrapping method

Higuchi

Komatsu

Iida

et al. 2019

JBSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, vertebral compressive loads, as calculated by musculoskeletal models, may explain the higher incidence of fractures in thoracolumbar vertebrae compared to other spinal regions (Bruno et al, 2017a). However, currently available thoracolumbar spine models (Bruno et al, 2015;Ignasiak et al, 2016) are entirely based on data from adults and might therefore not be applicable for simulations in children and adolescents. Especially when considering the non-linear development of anthropometric properties and spinal alignment during growth (Cil et al, 2005;Fryar et al, 2012;Jensen, 1989), the typical uniform scaling approach seems not appropriate to create such models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musculoskeletal full-body models including a detailed thoracolumbar spine for children and adolescents aged 6–18 years

Schmid

Burkhart

Allaire

et al. 2020

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently available thoracolumbar spine models are entirely based on data from adults and might therefore not be applicable for simulations in children and adolescents. In addition, these models lack lower extremities, which are required for comprehensive evaluations of functional activities or therapeutic exercises. We therefore created OpenSim-based musculoskeletal full-body models including a detailed thoracolumbar spine for children and adolescents aged 6-18 years and validated by comparing model predictions to in vivo data. After combining our recently developed adult thoracolumbar spine model with a lower extremity model, children and adolescent models were created for each year of age by adjusting segmental length and mass distribution, center of mass positions and moments of inertia of the major body segments as well as sagittal pelvis and spine alignment based on literature data. Similarly, muscle strength properties were adjusted based on CT-derived cross-sectional area measurements. Simulations were conducted from in vivo studies involving children and adolescents evaluating maximum trunk muscle strength (MTMS), lumbar disc compressibility (LDC), intradiscal pressure (IDP) and trunk muscle activity (MA). Model predictions correlated highly with in vivo data (MTMS: r≥0.82, p≤0.03; LDC: r=0.77, p˂0.001; IDP: r≥0.78, p˂0.001; MA: r≥0.90, p˂0.001), indicating suitability for the reasonably accurate prediction of maximal trunk extensor strength, segmental loading and trunk muscle activity in children and adolescents. When aiming at investigating children or adolescents with pathologies such as idiopathic scoliosis, our models can serve as a basis for the creation of deformed spine models as well as for comparative purposes.

show abstract

“…These illustrations were prepared by visually inspecting the tendinous attachments of muscle bundles at the bones and estimating average locations across the cadavers studied rather than measuring the positions. Subsequently, the majority of generic musculoskeletal models adopted these illustrations for defining muscle lines-of-action (De Zee et al 2007;Gagnon et al 2011;Christophy et al 2012;Ignasiak, Dendorfer, et al 2016). Other studies introduced novel techniques to adjust muscle paths and cross-sectional areas of major trunk muscles based on two-dimensional medical images (Anderson et al 2012;Bruno et al 2015;Eskandari et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity of muscle and intervertebral disc force computations to variations in muscle attachment sites

Bayoğlu

Güldeniz

Koopman

et al. 2019

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current paper aims at assessing the sensitivity of muscle and intervertebral disc force computations against potential errors in modeling muscle attachment sites. We perturbed each attachment location in a complete and coherent musculoskeletal model of the human spine and quantified the changes in muscle and disc forces during standing upright, flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation of the trunk. Although the majority of the muscles caused minor changes (less than 5%) in the disc forces, certain muscle groups, for example, quadratus lumborum, altered the shear and compressive forces as high as 353% and 17%, respectively. Furthermore, percent changes were higher in the shear forces than in the compressive forces. Our analyses identified certain muscles in the rib cage (intercostales interni and intercostales externi) and lumbar spine (quadratus lumborum and longissimus thoracis) as being more influential for computing muscle and disc forces. Furthermore, the disc forces at the L4/L5 joint were the most sensitive against muscle attachment sites, followed by T6/T7 and T12/L1 joints. Presented findings suggest that modeling muscle attachment sites based on solely anatomical illustrations might lead to erroneous evaluation of internal forces and promote using anatomical datasets where these locations were accurately measured. When developing a personalized model of the spine, certain care should also be paid especially for the muscles indicated in this work.

show abstract

Thoracolumbar spine model with articulated ribcage for the prediction of dynamic spinal loading

Cited by 79 publications

References 75 publications

Construction and validation under dynamic conditions of a novel thoracolumbar spine model with defined muscle paths using the wrapping method

Construction and validation under dynamic conditions of a novel thoracolumbar spine model with defined muscle paths using the wrapping method

Musculoskeletal full-body models including a detailed thoracolumbar spine for children and adolescents aged 6–18 years

Sensitivity of muscle and intervertebral disc force computations to variations in muscle attachment sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Thoracolumbar spine model with articulated ribcage for the prediction of dynamic spinal loading

Cited by 79 publications

References 75 publications

Construction and validation under dynamic conditions of a novel thoracolumbar spine model with defined muscle paths using the wrapping method

Construction and validation under dynamic conditions of a novel thoracolumbar spine model with defined muscle paths using the wrapping method

Musculoskeletal full-body models including a detailed thoracolumbar spine for children and adolescents aged 6–18 years

Sensitivity of muscle and intervertebral disc force computations to variations in muscle attachment sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Musculoskeletal full-body models including a detailed thoracolumbar spine for children and adolescents aged 6–18 years