Literature DB >> 12706029

Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine.

Avinash G Patwardhan1, Robert M Havey, Gerard Carandang, James Simonds, Leonard I Voronov, Alexander J Ghanayem, Kevin P Meade, Thomas M Gavin, Odysseas Paxinos.   

Abstract

Traditional experimental methods are unable to study the kinematics of whole lumbar spine specimens under physiologic compressive preloads because the spine without active musculature buckles under just 120 N of vertical load. However, the lumbar spine can support a compressive load of physiologic magnitude (up to 1200 N) without collapsing if the load is applied along a follower load path. This study tested the hypothesis that the load-displacement response of the lumbar spine in flexion-extension is affected by the magnitude of the follower preload and the follower preload path. Twenty-one fresh human cadaveric lumbar spines were tested in flexion-extension under increasing compressive follower preload applied along two distinctly different optimized preload paths. The first (neutral) preload path was considered optimum if the specimen underwent the least angular change in its lordosis when the full range of preload (0-1200 N) was applied in its neutral posture. The second (flexed) preload path was optimized for an intermediate specimen posture between neutral and full flexion. A twofold increase in flexion stiffness occurred around the neutral posture as the preload was increased from 0 to 1200 N. The preload magnitude (400 N and larger) significantly affected the range of motion (ROM), with a 25% decrease at 1200 N preload applied along the neutral path. When the preload was applied along a path optimized for an intermediate forward-flexed posture, only a 15% decrease in ROM occurred at 1200 N. The results demonstrate that whole lumbar spine specimens can be subjected to compressive follower preloads of in vivo magnitudes while allowing physiologic mobility under flexion-extension moments. The optimized follower preload provides a method to simulate the resultant vector of the muscles that allow the spine to support physiologic compressive loads induced during flexion-extension activities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12706029     DOI: 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00202-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  42 in total

1.  Effect of the intra-abdominal pressure and the center of segmental body mass on the lumbar spine mechanics - a computational parametric study.

Authors:  W M Park; S Wang; Y H Kim; K B Wood; J A Sim; G Li
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.097

2.  Biomechanical evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System® (TFAS®): loading as compared to a rigid posterior instrumentation system.

Authors:  Simon G Sjovold; Qingan Zhu; Anton Bowden; Chad R Larson; Peter M de Bakker; Marta L Villarraga; Jorge A Ochoa; David M Rosler; Peter A Cripton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  A history of spine biomechanics. Focus on 20th century progress.

Authors:  T R Oxland
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  Biomechanical Comparison of Robotically Applied Pure Moment, Ideal Follower Load, and Novel Trunk Weight Loading Protocols on L4-L5 Cadaveric Segments during Flexion-Extension.

Authors:  Charles R Bennett; Denis J DiAngelo; Brian P Kelly
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

5.  In vitro evaluation of translating and rotating plates using a robot testing system under follower load.

Authors:  Y Yan; K M Bell; R A Hartman; J Hu; W Wang; J D Kang; J Y Lee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Christina A Niosi; Qingan A Zhu; Derek C Wilson; Ory Keynan; David R Wilson; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Role of intra-abdominal pressure in the unloading and stabilization of the human spine during static lifting tasks.

Authors:  N Arjmand; A Shirazi-Adl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Qingan Zhu; Eyal Itshayek; Claire F Jones; Timothy Schwab; Chadwick R Larson; Lawrence G Lenke; Peter A Cripton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  En bloc spondylectomy reconstructions in a biomechanical in-vitro study.

Authors:  A C Disch; K D Schaser; I Melcher; A Luzzati; F Feraboli; W Schmoelz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The rib cage stiffens the thoracic spine in a cadaveric model with body weight load under dynamic moments.

Authors:  Erin M Mannen; Elizabeth A Friis; Hadley L Sis; Benjamin M Wong; Eileen S Cadel; Dennis E Anderson
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2018-05-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.