Literature DB >> 14652475

ISSLS prize winner: A novel approach to determine trunk muscle forces during flexion and extension: a comparison of data from an in vitro experiment and in vivo measurements.

H-J Wilke1, A Rohlmann, S Neller, F Graichen, L Claes, G Bergmann.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Disc pressure and fixator load were measured in an in vitro setup and compared to in vivo measurements with the identical transducers from the two groups participating in this study.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this in vitro study was to determine the magnitude of trunk muscle forces during flexion and extension. The loading conditions in this study accounted for body weight, local and global muscles, and forces resulting from the support of the abdominal soft tissue in different postures. Resulting intersegmental motions and intradiscal pressure in each segment and the six load components in both rods of an internal fixator were determined. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The spine is primarily stabilized by muscle forces, which greatly influence spinal loads. However, little information exists on the magnitudes of trunk muscle forces during postures like flexion and extension of the upper body.
METHODS: Seven human cadaveric lumbar spines were mounted in a spine tester and adjusted to different degrees of flexion and extension of the upper body with different hip flexions. For each specimen, a total of 124 load cases were studied. They included combinations of a vertical compressive load, a follower load and forces pulling with cables at a plate fixed at the cranial end of the specimen to simulate rectus abdominis, erector spinae, and a supporting force of the abdomen. The muscle forces were varied until the external moment, necessary to keep the lumbar spine specimen in the examined posture, was zero. This was achieved with different muscle force combinations. Loads on internal fixators as well as intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation at all levels were measured. The muscle force combination that caused intradiscal pressures and loads in the internal fixator closest to those measured in vivo were assumed to be the muscle forces which can be expected in vivo.
RESULTS: Generally, intradiscal pressure was closer to in vivo measurements than the fixator loads. The force in the m. erector spinae increased with the flexion angle but was only slightly influenced by extension. The estimated forces in the erector spinae were 100 N for standing, 130 N for 15 degrees extension, and 520 N for 30 degrees flexion of the upper body. Little influence was found on the intersegmental motion.
CONCLUSION: In vitro loading conditions can be approximated closely to in vivo conditions with the simulation of an axial preload, local, and global muscles. This novel approach can help to estimate muscle forces, which can usually not be measured. The results from this study provide important input for FEM models, which may then allow the investigation of different load cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14652475     DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000096673.16363.C7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  28 in total

1.  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

2.  Advanced Multi-Axis Spine Testing: Clinical Relevance and Research Recommendations.

Authors:  Timothy P Holsgrove; Nikhil R Nayak; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

3.  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

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

Review 5.  Mechanical loading of the intervertebral disc: from the macroscopic to the cellular level.

Authors:  Cornelia Neidlinger-Wilke; Fabio Galbusera; Harris Pratsinis; Eleni Mavrogonatou; Antje Mietsch; Dimitris Kletsas; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Methods to monitor distribution and metabolic activity of mesenchymal stem cells following in vivo injection into nucleotomized porcine intervertebral discs.

Authors:  G W Omlor; H Bertram; K Kleinschmidt; J Fischer; K Brohm; T Guehring; M Anton; Wiltrud Richter
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Biomechanical analysis of Ponte and pedicle subtraction osteotomies for the surgical correction of kyphotic deformities.

Authors:  Giuditta Salvi; Carl-Eric Aubin; Franck Le Naveaux; Xiaoyu Wang; Stefan Parent
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Finite element analysis comparing short-segment instrumentation with conventional pedicle screws and the Schanz pedicle screw in lumbar 1 fractures.

Authors:  Fei Zhou; Sheng Yang; Jifeng Liu; Jianmin Lu; Depeng Shang; Chao Chen; Huanhuan Wang; Jinming Ma
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 3.042

9.  The dog as an animal model for DISH?

Authors:  H C Kranenburg; L A Westerveld; J J Verlaan; F C Oner; W J A Dhert; G Voorhout; H A W Hazewinkel; B P Meij
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-02-02       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Fibrin-genipin adhesive hydrogel for annulus fibrosus repair: performance evaluation with large animal organ culture, in situ biomechanics, and in vivo degradation tests.

Authors:  M Likhitpanichkul; M Dreischarf; S Illien-Junger; B A Walter; T Nukaga; R G Long; D Sakai; A C Hecht; J C Iatridis
Journal:  Eur Cell Mater       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 3.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.