Literature DB >> 11450876

Comparison of intradiscal pressures and spinal fixator loads for different body positions and exercises.

A Rohlmannt1, L E Claes, G Bergmannt, F Graichen, P Neef, H J Wilke.   

Abstract

Loading of the spine is still not well understood. The most reliable results seemed to come from the intradiscal pressure measurements from studies by Nachemson, 1966. A new similar study by Wilke et al. (1999) complemented the present study and confirmed some of the earlier data, although it contradicted others. The new data did not confirm that the load on the spine is higher in sitting compared with standing and did not find distinct differences between positions in which subjects were lying down. The objective of this paper was to compare results from two independent in vivo studies (applying different methods) to provide information about spinal loading. In one of these studies (Wilke 1999), intradiscal pressure was measured in one volunteer in different postures and exercises, and in the other study (Rohlmann et al. 1994) the loads on an internal spinal fixation device (an implant for stabilising unstable spines) were determined in 10 patients. The absolute values of the results from both studies were normalized and compared for many body positions and dynamic exercises. The relative differences in intradiscal pressure and flexion bending moments in the fixators corresponded in most cases. Both studies showed slightly lower loads for sitting than for standing and comparatively low loads in all lying positions. High loads were measured for jogging, jumping on a trampoline and skipping. Differences between trends for intradiscal pressure and for flexion bending moments in the fixators were found when the load was predominantly carried by the anterior spinal column, as during flexion of the upper part of the body or when lifting and carrying weights. The combination of the results from these two methods may improve the understanding of the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine and may be used to validate models and theories of spinal loading.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11450876     DOI: 10.1080/00140130120943

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ergonomics        ISSN: 0014-0139            Impact factor:   2.778


  18 in total

1.  Transmission of force in the lumbosacral spine during backward falls.

Authors:  Carolyn Van Toen; Meena M Sran; Stephen N Robinovitch; Peter A Cripton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Comparison of the biomechanical effects of posterior and anterior spine-stabilizing implants.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; T Zander; G Bergmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-02-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Association between sitting and occupational LBP.

Authors:  Angela Maria Lis; Katia M Black; Hayley Korn; Margareta Nordin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Nagananda K Burra; Thomas Zander; Georg Bergmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  [An improved vertebral body replacement for the thoracolumbar spine. A biomechanical in vitro test on human lumbar vertebral bodies].

Authors:  M Reinhold; W Schmölz; F Canto; D Krappinger; M Blauth; C Knop
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 6.  Design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Chiara M Bellini; Thomas Zweig; Stephen Ferguson; Manuela T Raimondi; Claudio Lamartina; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Maurizio Fornari
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Computed tomography shows high fracture prevalence among physically active forager-horticulturalists with high fertility.

Authors:  Jonathan Stieglitz; Benjamin C Trumble; Caleb E Finch; Dong Li; Matthew J Budoff; Hillard Kaplan; Michael D Gurven
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 8.140

8.  Preclinical evaluation of posterior spine stabilization devices: can the current standards represent basic everyday life activities?

Authors:  Luigi La Barbera; Fabio Galbusera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Tomaso Villa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  A probabilistic finite element analysis of the stresses in the augmented vertebral body after vertebroplasty.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Hadi Nabil Boustani; Georg Bergmann; Thomas Zander
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-02       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Productivity loss associated with functional disability in a contemporary small-scale subsistence population.

Authors:  Jonathan Stieglitz; Paul L Hooper; Benjamin C Trumble; Hillard Kaplan; Michael D Gurven
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 8.140

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.