Literature DB >> 15480828

Biofidelic whole cervical spine model with muscle force replication for whiplash simulation.

P C Ivancic1, Manohar M Panjabi, S Ito, P A Cripton, J L Wang.   

Abstract

Whiplash has been simulated using volunteers, whole cadavers, mathematical models, anthropometric test dummies, and whole cervical spines. Many previous in vitro whiplash models lack dynamic biofidelity. The goals of this study were to (1) develop a new dynamic whole cervical spine whiplash model that will incorporate anterior, lateral and posterior muscle force replication, (2) evaluate its performance experimentally and (3) compare the results with in vivo data. To evaluate the new model, rear-impact whiplash simulations were performed using the incremental trauma approach at maximum measured T1 horizontal accelerations of 3.6 g, 4.7 g, 6.6 g, and 7.9 g. The kinematic response of the new model, e.g., peak head-T1 extension and peak intervertebral rotations, were compared with the corresponding in vivo data. The average peak head-T1 extension was within the in vivo corridor during the 3.6 g whiplash simulation (9.1 kph delta V). The peak in vivo intervertebral rotations obtained during a 4.6 g whiplash simulation of a young volunteer were within, or only marginally in excess of, the 95% confidence limits of the average peak intervertebral rotations measured during the 4.7 g whiplash simulation of the present study. Thus, the new whole cervical spine model with muscle force replication produced biofidelic dynamic responses to simulated whiplash. The new model is capable of generating important biomechanical data that may help improve our understanding of whiplash injuries and injury mechanisms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15480828      PMCID: PMC3489205          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0758-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  59 in total

1.  Cervical flexion, extension, protrusion, and retraction. A radiographic segmental analysis.

Authors:  N R Ordway; R J Seymour; R G Donelson; L S Hojnowski; W T Edwards
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Evaluation of the BioRID P3 and the Hybrid III in pendulum impacts to the back--a comparison to human subject test data.

Authors:  A Linder; U Bergman; M Svensson; D Viano
Journal:  Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med       Date:  2000

Review 3.  Cervical spine lesions after road traffic accidents: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lars Uhrenholt; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson; Jan Hartvigsen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Importance of the intersegmental trunk muscles for the stability of the lumbar spine. A biomechanical study in vitro.

Authors:  U Quint; H J Wilke; A Shirazi-Adl; M Parnianpour; F Löer; L E Claes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Analysis and measurement of neck loads.

Authors:  S P Moroney; A B Schultz; J A Miller
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  Whiplash syndrome: kinematic factors influencing pain patterns.

Authors:  J F Cusick; F A Pintar; N Yoganandan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  The effect of accident mechanisms and initial findings on the long-term course of whiplash injury.

Authors:  M Sturzenegger; B P Radanov; G Di Stefano
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  Comparative local anaesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of cervical zygapophysial joint pain.

Authors:  Les Barnsley; Susan Lord; Nikolai Bogduk
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Laminectomy and functional impairment of the lumbar spine: the importance of muscle forces in flexible and rigid instrumented stabilization--a biomechanical study in vitro.

Authors:  U Quint; H J Wilke; F Löer; L Claes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Normal range of motion of the cervical spine.

Authors:  B Lind; H Sihlbom; A Nordwall; H Malchau
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 3.966

View more
  6 in total

1.  Cervical neural space narrowing during simulated rear crashes with anti-whiplash systems.

Authors:  Paul C Ivancic
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Whiplash causes increased laxity of cervical capsular ligament.

Authors:  Paul C Ivancic; Shigeki Ito; Yasuhiro Tominaga; Wolfgang Rubin; Marcus P Coe; Anthony B Ndu; Erik J Carlson; Manohar M Panjabi
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Cervical facet joint kinematics during bilateral facet dislocation.

Authors:  Manohar M Panjabi; Andrew K Simpson; Paul C Ivancic; Adam M Pearson; Yasuhiro Tominaga; James J Yue
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Biomechanics of sports-induced axial-compression injuries of the neck.

Authors:  Paul C Ivancic
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Injury of the anterior longitudinal ligament during whiplash simulation.

Authors:  P C Ivancic; A M Pearson; M M Panjabi; S Ito
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-11-14       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Neck ligament strength is decreased following whiplash trauma.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Tominaga; Anthony B Ndu; Marcus P Coe; Arnold J Valenson; Paul C Ivancic; Shigeki Ito; Wolfgang Rubin; Manohar M Panjabi
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.