Literature DB >> 19268291

Realistic loading conditions for upper body bending.

A Rohlmann1, T Zander, M Rao, G Bergmann.   

Abstract

Different modes of load applications are used to simulate flexion and extension of the upper body. It is not clear which loading modes deliver realistic results and allow the comparison of different studies. In a numerical study, a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine, ranging from the vertebra L1 to the disc L5-S1 was employed. Each of six different loading modes was studied for simulating flexion and extension, including pure moments, an eccentric axial force, using a wedged fixture, and applying upper body weight plus follower load plus muscle forces. Intersegmental rotations, intradiscal pressures and facet joint contact forces were calculated. Where possible, results were compared to data measured in vivo. The results of the loading modes studied show a large variance for some values. Outcome measures such as flexion angle and intradiscal pressure differed at a segment by up to 44% and 88%, respectively, related to their maximum values. Intradiscal pressure is mainly determined by the magnitude of the applied compressive force. For flexion maximum contact forces between 0 and 69 N are predicted in each facet joint for different loading modes. For both flexion and extension, applying upper body weight plus follower load plus muscle forces as well as a follower load together with a bending moment delivers results which agreed well with in vivo data from the literature. Choosing an adequate loading mode is important in spine biomechanics when realistic results are required for intersegmental rotations, intradiscal pressure and facet joint contact forces. Only then will results of different studies be comparable.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19268291     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.01.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  34 in total

1.  Optimal stiffness of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation implant for the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Thomas Zander; Georg Bergmann; Hadi N Boustani
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Parameters influencing the outcome after total disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction. Part 1: misalignment of the vertebrae adjacent to a total disc replacement affects the facet joint and facet capsule forces in a probabilistic finite element analysis.

Authors:  A Rohlmann; S Lauterborn; M Dreischarf; H Schmidt; M Putzier; P Strube; T Zander
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The effect of different design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the range of motion, facet joint forces and instantaneous center of rotation of a L4-5 segment.

Authors:  Hendrik Schmidt; Stefan Midderhoff; Kyle Adkins; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  In silico evaluation of a new composite disc substitute with a L3-L5 lumbar spine finite element model.

Authors:  Jérôme Noailly; Luigi Ambrosio; K Elizabeth Tanner; Josep A Planell; Damien Lacroix
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-05       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  [Stiffening effect of a transsacral fusion system for the lumbosacral junction. A probabilistic finite element analysis and sensitivity study].

Authors:  H N Boustani; A Rohlmann; O Abouezzeddine; G Bergmann; T Zander
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Computer simulation and image guidance for individualised dynamic spinal stabilization.

Authors:  S R Kantelhardt; U Hausen; M Kosterhon; A N Amr; K Gruber; A Giese
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-01-04       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  A new method to include the gravitational forces in a finite element model of the scoliotic spine.

Authors:  Julien Clin; Carl-Éric Aubin; Nadine Lalonde; Stefan Parent; Hubert Labelle
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Effects of rod stiffness and fusion mass on the adjacent segments after floating mono-segmental fusion: a study using finite element analysis.

Authors:  Yong Jun Jin; Young Eun Kim; Jung Ho Seo; Hae Won Choi; Tae-Ahn Jahng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Pedicle screw fixation with kyphoplasty decreases the fracture risk of the treated and adjacent non-treated vertebral bodies: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Pan Yang; Ying Zhang; Huan-Wen Ding; Jian Liu; Lin-Qiang Ye; Jin Xiao; Qiang Tu; Tao Yang; Fei Wang; Guo-Gang Sun
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2016-12-07

10.  Biomechanics of sacropelvic fixation: a comprehensive finite element comparison of three techniques.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Gloria Casaroli; Ruchi Chande; Derek Lindsey; Tomaso Villa; Scott Yerby; Ali Mesiwala; Matteo Panico; Enrico Gallazzi; Marco Brayda-Bruno
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.