Masoud Malakoutian1, John Street2, Hans-Joachim Wilke3, Ian Stavness4, Marcel Dvorak2, Sidney Fels5, Thomas Oxland6,7. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, ICORD, Blusson Spinal Cord Centre, 5th Floor, 818 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. 3. Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Center of Musculoskeletal Research, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 4. Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 5. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 6. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. toxland@exchange.ubc.ca. 7. Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, ICORD, Blusson Spinal Cord Centre, 5th Floor, 818 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. toxland@exchange.ubc.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is well established that posterior spinal surgery results in damage to the paraspinal musculature. The effects of such iatrogenic changes on spinal loading have not been previously investigated, particularly at levels adjacent to a spinal fusion. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the effect of simulated muscle damage on post-operative spinal loading at the adjacent levels to a spinal fusion during upright postures using a mathematical model. METHODS: A musculoskeletal model of the spine using ArtiSynth with 210 muscle fascicles was used to predict spinal loading in an upright posture. The loading at L1-L2 and L5-S1 were estimated before and after simulated paraspinal muscle damage (i.e., removal of muscle attachments at L2-L5) along the lumbar spine, both with a spinal fusion at L2-L5 and without a spinal fusion. RESULTS: The axial compressive forces at the adjacent levels increased after simulated muscle damage, with the largest changes being at the rostral level (78 % increase in presence of spinal fusion; 73 % increase without spinal fusion) compared to the caudal level (41 % in presence of fusion and 32 % without fusion). Shear forces increased in a similar manner at both the rostral and caudal levels. These changes in loading were due to a redistribution of muscle activity from the local lumbar to the global spinal musculature. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the paraspinal muscles of the lumbar spine play an important role in adjacent segment loading of a spinal fusion, independent of the presence of rigid spinal instrumentation.
PURPOSE: It is well established that posterior spinal surgery results in damage to the paraspinal musculature. The effects of such iatrogenic changes on spinal loading have not been previously investigated, particularly at levels adjacent to a spinal fusion. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the effect of simulated muscle damage on post-operative spinal loading at the adjacent levels to a spinal fusion during upright postures using a mathematical model. METHODS: A musculoskeletal model of the spine using ArtiSynth with 210 muscle fascicles was used to predict spinal loading in an upright posture. The loading at L1-L2 and L5-S1 were estimated before and after simulated paraspinal muscle damage (i.e., removal of muscle attachments at L2-L5) along the lumbar spine, both with a spinal fusion at L2-L5 and without a spinal fusion. RESULTS: The axial compressive forces at the adjacent levels increased after simulated muscle damage, with the largest changes being at the rostral level (78 % increase in presence of spinal fusion; 73 % increase without spinal fusion) compared to the caudal level (41 % in presence of fusion and 32 % without fusion). Shear forces increased in a similar manner at both the rostral and caudal levels. These changes in loading were due to a redistribution of muscle activity from the local lumbar to the global spinal musculature. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the paraspinal muscles of the lumbar spine play an important role in adjacent segment loading of a spinal fusion, independent of the presence of rigid spinal instrumentation.
Authors: Anne F Mannion; Gunnar Leivseth; Jens-Ivar Brox; Peter Fritzell; Olle Hägg; Jeremy C T Fairbank Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Anne Keller; Jens I Brox; Ragnhild Gunderson; Inger Holm; Astrid Friis; Olav Reikerås Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Aldemar Andres Hegewald; Sebastian Hartmann; Alexander Keiler; Kai Michael Scheufler; Claudius Thomé; Werner Schmoelz Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Masoud Malakoutian; C Antonio Sanchez; Stephen H M Brown; John Street; Sidney Fels; Thomas R Oxland Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-06-02
Authors: Egon Burian; Stephanie Inhuber; Sarah Schlaeger; Michael Dieckmeyer; Elisabeth Klupp; Daniela Franz; Dominik Weidlich; Nico Sollmann; Maximilian Löffler; Ansgar Schwirtz; Ernst J Rummeny; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Thomas Baum Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-01