Literature DB >> 26273551

Biomechanical Comparison of Robotically Applied Pure Moment, Ideal Follower Load, and Novel Trunk Weight Loading Protocols on L4-L5 Cadaveric Segments during Flexion-Extension.

Charles R Bennett1, Denis J DiAngelo1, Brian P Kelly2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Extremely few in-vitro biomechanical studies have incorporated shear loads leaving a gap for investigation, especially when applied in combination with compression and bending under dynamic conditions. The objective of this study was to biomechanically compare sagittal plane application of two standard protocols, pure moment (PM) and follower load (FL), with a novel trunk weight (TW) loading protocol designed to induce shear in combination with compression and dynamic bending in a neutrally potted human cadaveric L4-L5 motion segment unit (MSU) model. A secondary objective and novelty of the current study was the application of all three protocols within the same testing system serving to reduce artifacts due to testing system variability.
METHODS: Six L4-L5 segments were tested in a Cartesian load controlled system in flexion-extension to 8Nm under PM, simulated ideal 400N FL, and vertically oriented 400N TW loading protocols. Comparison metrics used were rotational range of motion (RROM), flexibility, neutral zone (NZ) range of motion, and L4 vertebral body displacements.
RESULTS: Significant differences in vertebral body translations were observed with different initial force applications but not with subsequent bending moment application. Significant reductions were observed in combined flexion-extension RROM, in flexibility during extension, and in NZ region flexibility with the TW loading protocol as compared to PM loading. Neutral zone ranges of motion were not different between all protocols.
CONCLUSIONS: The combined compression and shear forces applied across the spinal joint in the trunk weight protocol may have a small but significantly increased stabilizing effect on segment flexibility and kinematics during sagittal plane flexion and extension.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cartesian; Displacement Control; Follower Load; Force Control; Load Control; Lumbar; Mechanical testing; Methodology; Protocol Comparison; Pure Moment; Robotics; Six Degrees of Freedom; Trunk Weight; biomechanics; spine

Year:  2015        PMID: 26273551      PMCID: PMC4528569          DOI: 10.14444/2033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  38 in total

1.  Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  A Rohlmann; S Neller; L Claes; G Bergmann; H J Wilke
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Defining the Neutral Zone of sheep intervertebral joints during dynamic motions: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Rosemary E Thompson; Timothy M Barker; Mark J Pearcy
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Shear force measurements on low- and high-stiffness posterior fusion devices.

Authors:  Angela D Melnyk; Jason D Chak; Peter A Cripton; Marcel F Dvorak; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 2.242

4.  Biomechanical evaluation of a posterolateral lumbar disc arthroplasty device: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

Authors:  Jun Kikkawa; Bryan W Cunningham; Osamu Shirado; Nianbin Hu; Paul C McAfee; Hiromi Oda
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Christina A Niosi; Qingan A Zhu; Derek C Wilson; Ory Keynan; David R Wilson; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  New methodology for multi-dimensional spinal joint testing with a parallel robot.

Authors:  Matthew R Walker; James P Dickey
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2007-01-19       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  Inter-laboratory variability in in vitro spinal segment flexibility testing.

Authors:  Daniel J Wheeler; Andrew L Freeman; Arin M Ellingson; David J Nuckley; Jenni M Buckley; Justin K Scheer; Neil R Crawford; Joan E Bechtold
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Cyclic compression-flexion loading of the human lumbar spine.

Authors:  N Yoganandan; J F Cusick; F A Pintar; K Droese; J Reinartz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Biomechanical evaluation of cervical double-door laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spacer.

Authors:  Shinichiro Kubo; Vijay K Goel; Seok-Jo Yang; Naoya Tajima
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Quantifying intervertebral disc mechanics: a new definition of the neutral zone.

Authors:  Theodoor H Smit; Manon Slm van Tunen; Albert J van der Veen; Idsart Kingma; Jaap H van Dieën
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  In Silico Meta-Analysis of Boundary Conditions for Experimental Tests on the Lumbar Spine.

Authors:  Simone Borrelli; Giovanni Putame; Giulia Pascoletti; Mara Terzini; Elisabetta M Zanetti
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 4.219

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.