Literature DB >> 25234351

Inter-individual variation in vertebral kinematics affects predictions of neck musculoskeletal models.

Derek D Nevins1, Liying Zheng2, Anita N Vasavada3.   

Abstract

Experimental studies have found significant variation in cervical intervertebral kinematics (IVK) among healthy subjects, but the effect of this variation on biomechanical properties, such as neck strength, has not been explored. The goal of this study was to quantify variation in model predictions of extension strength, flexion strength and gravitational demand (the ratio of gravitational load from the weight of the head to neck muscle extension strength), due to inter-subject variation in IVK. IVK were measured from sagittal radiographs of 24 subjects (14F, 10M) in five postures: maximal extension, mid-extension, neutral, mid-flexion, and maximal flexion. IVK were defined by the position (anterior-posterior and superior-inferior) of each cervical vertebra with respect to T1 and its angle with respect to horizontal, and fit with a cubic polynomial over the range of motion. The IVK of each subject were scaled and incorporated into musculoskeletal models to create models that were identical in muscle force- and moment-generating properties but had subject-specific kinematics. The effect of inter-subject variation in IVK was quantified using the coefficient of variation (COV), the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. COV of extension strength ranged from 8% to 15% over the range of motion, but COV of flexion strength was 20-80%. Moreover, the COV of gravitational demand was 80-90%, because the gravitational demand is affected by head position as well as neck strength. These results indicate that including inter-individual variation in models is important for evaluating neck musculoskeletal biomechanical properties.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical spine kinematics; Ergonomics; Neck models; Neck strength

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25234351      PMCID: PMC4203672          DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.08.017

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


  24 in total

1.  Normal global motion of the cervical spine: an electrogoniometric study.

Authors:  V Feipel; B Rondelet; J Le Pallec; M Rooze
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Range of global motion of the cervical spine: intraindividual reliability and the influence of measurement device.

Authors:  A F Mannion; G N Klein; J Dvorak; C Lanz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International Society of Biomechanics.

Authors:  Ge Wu; Sorin Siegler; Paul Allard; Chris Kirtley; Alberto Leardini; Dieter Rosenbaum; Mike Whittle; Darryl D D'Lima; Luca Cristofolini; Hartmut Witte; Oskar Schmid; Ian Stokes
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Validation of a head-neck computer model for whiplash simulation.

Authors:  B D Stemper; N Yoganandan; F A Pintar
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  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

6.  Determination of muscle orientations and moment arms.

Authors:  K N An; K Takahashi; T P Harrigan; E Y Chao
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 2.097

7.  The variation in isometric tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibres.

Authors:  A M Gordon; A F Huxley; F J Julian
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1966-05       Impact factor: 5.182

8.  Influence of muscle morphometry and moment arms on the moment-generating capacity of human neck muscles.

Authors:  A N Vasavada; S Li; S L Delp
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Are neck flexion, neck rotation, and sitting at work risk factors for neck pain? Results of a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  G A Ariëns; P M Bongers; M Douwes; M C Miedema; W E Hoogendoorn; G van der Wal; L M Bouter; W van Mechelen
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.402

10.  Zebris versus Myrin: a comparative study between a three-dimensional ultrasound movement analysis and an inclinometer/compass method: intradevice reliability, concurrent validity, intertester comparison, intratester reliability, and intraindividual variability.

Authors:  Eva-Maj Malmström; Mikael Karlberg; Agneta Melander; Måns Magnusson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.