Literature DB >> 23317757

Sensitivity, reliability and accuracy of the instant center of rotation calculation in the cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension.

Emma Baillargeon1, William J Anderst.   

Abstract

The instant center of rotation (ICR) has been proposed as an alternative to range of motion (ROM) for evaluating the quality, rather than the quantity, of cervical spine movement. The purpose of the present study was to assess the sensitivity, reliability and accuracy of cervical spine ICR path calculations obtained during dynamic in vivo movement. The reliability and sensitivity of in vivo cervical spine ICR calculations were assessed by evaluating the effects of movement direction (flexion versus extension), rotation step size, filter frequency, and motion tracking error. The accuracy of the ICR path calculations was assessed through a simulation experiment that replicated in vivo movement of cervical vertebrae. The in vivo assessment included 20 asymptomatic subjects who performed continuous head flexion-extension movements while biplane radiographs were collected at 30 frames per second. In vivo motion of C2 through C7 cervical vertebrae was tracked with sub-millimeter accuracy using a volumetric model-based tracking technique. The finite helical axis method was used to determine ICRs between each pair of adjacent vertebra. The in vivo results indicate ICR path is not different during the flexion movement and the extension movement. In vivo, the path of the ICR can reliably be characterized within 0.5mm in the SI and 1.0mm in the AP direction. The inter-subject variability in ICR location averaged ±1.2mm in the SI direction and ±2.2mm in the AP direction. The computational experiment estimated the in vivo accuracy in ICR location was between 1.1mm and 3.1mm.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23317757      PMCID: PMC3568193          DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.11.055

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


  38 in total

1.  Minimizing errors associated with calculating the location of the helical axis for spinal motions.

Authors:  M F Metzger; N A Faruk Senan; O M O'Reilly; J C Lotz
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Validation of a new model-based tracking technique for measuring three-dimensional, in vivo glenohumeral joint kinematics.

Authors:  Michael J Bey; Roger Zauel; Stephanie K Brock; Scott Tashman
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.097

3.  The finite helical axis of the knee joint (a non-invasive in vivo study using fast-PC MRI).

Authors:  Frances T Sheehan
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2006-12-04       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Trajectory of the center of rotation in non-articulated energy storage and return prosthetic feet.

Authors:  Andrew Sawers; Michael E Hahn
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Centrode patterns in the lumbar spine. Baseline studies in normal subjects.

Authors:  N G Ogston; G J King; S D Gertzbein; M Tile; A Kapasouri; J D Rubenstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1986 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Centers and angles of rotation of body joints: a study of errors and optimization.

Authors:  M M Panjabi
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 7.  The role of tissue damage in whiplash-associated disorders: discussion paper 1.

Authors:  Michele Curatolo; Nikolai Bogduk; Paul C Ivancic; Samuel A McLean; Gunter P Siegmund; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  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

9.  Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.

Authors:  Daniel Murrey; Michael Janssen; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey Goldstein; Jack Zigler; Bobby Tay; Bruce Darden
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-09-06       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Six-degrees-of-freedom cervical spine range of motion during dynamic flexion-extension after single-level anterior arthrodesis: comparison with asymptomatic control subjects.

Authors:  William J Anderst; Joon Y Lee; William F Donaldson; James D Kang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  Tibiofemoral helical axis of motion during the full gait cycle measured using biplane radiography.

Authors:  Tom Gale; William Anderst
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 2.242

3.  Motion path of the instant center of rotation in the cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension: implications for artificial disc design and evaluation of motion quality after arthrodesis.

Authors:  William Anderst; Emma Baillargeon; William Donaldson; Joon Lee; James Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Paths of the cervical instantaneous axis of rotation during active movements-patterns and reliability.

Authors:  William Venegas; Marta Inglés; Álvaro Page; Pilar Serra-Añó
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  In cervical arthroplasty, only prosthesis with flexible biomechanical properties should be used for achieving a near-physiological motion pattern.

Authors:  Manfred Muhlbauer; Ernst Tomasch; Wolfgang Sinz; Siegfried Trattnig; Hermann Steffan
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Prediction of the Spinal Musculoskeletal Loadings during Level Walking and Stair Climbing after Two Types of Simulated Interventions in Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Authors:  Shengzheng Kuai; Xinyu Guan; Weiqiang Liu; Run Ji; Jianyi Xiong; Daping Wang; Wenyu Zhou
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 2.682

7.  Cervical disc prostheses need a variable center of rotation for flexion / extension below disc level, plus a separate COR for lateral bending above disc level to more closely replicate in-vivo motion: MRI-based biomechanical in-vivo study.

Authors:  Manfred K Muhlbauer; Ernst Tomasch; Wolfgang Sinz; Siegfried Trattnig; Hermann Steffan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Assessing the biofidelity of in vitro biomechanical testing of the human cervical spine.

Authors:  Richard A Wawrose; Forbes E Howington; Clarissa M LeVasseur; Clair N Smith; Brandon K Couch; Jeremy D Shaw; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; Charity G Patterson; William J Anderst; Kevin M Bell
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 3.102

9.  Normal intervertebral segment rotation of the subaxial cervical spine: An in vivo study of dynamic neck motions.

Authors:  Yan Yu; Jing-Sheng Li; Tao Guo; Zhao Lang; James D Kang; Liming Cheng; Guoan Li; Thomas D Cha
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Locating the Instant Center of Rotation in the Subaxial Cervical Spine with Biplanar Fluoroscopy during In Vivo Dynamic Flexion-Extension.

Authors:  Seong Hwan Kim; Dae Woong Ham; Jeong Ik Lee; Seung Won Park; Myeong Jin Ko; Seung-Bum Koo; Kwang-Sup Song
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-11-12
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.