Literature DB >> 30536830

Physiological in vitro sacroiliac joint motion: a study on three-dimensional posterior pelvic ring kinematics.

Niels Hammer1,2,3, Mario Scholze1,4, Thomas Kibsgård5, Stefan Klima2,6, Stefan Schleifenbaum2, Thomas Seidel7, Michael Werner3,8, Ronny Grunert3,9.   

Abstract

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a well-known source of low back and pelvic pain, of increasing interest for both conservative and surgical treatment. Alterations in the kinematics of the pelvis have been hypothesized as a major cause of SIJ-related pain. However, definitions of both the range and the extent of physiological movement are controversial, and there are no clear baseline data for pathological alterations. The present study combined a novel biomechanical setup allowing for physiological motion of the lumbosacral transition and pelvis without restricting the SIJ movement in vitro, combined with optical image correlation. Six fresh human pelvises (81 ± 10 years, three females, three males) were tested, with bodyweight-adapted loading applied to the fifth lumbar vertebra and both acetabula. Deformation at the lumbopelvises was determined computationally from three-dimensional image correlation data. Sacroiliac joint motion under the loading of 100% bodyweight primarily consisted of a z-axis rotation (0.16°) and an inferior translation of the sacrum relative to the ilium (0.32 mm). Sacroiliac joint flexion-extension rotations were minute (< 0.02°). Corresponding movements of the SIJ were found at the lumbosacral transition, with an anterior translation of L5 relative to the sacrum of -0.97 mm and an inferior translation of 0.11 mm, respectively. Moreover, a flexion of 1.82° was observed at the lumbosacral transition. Within the innominate bone and at the pubic symphysis, small complementary rotations were seen around a vertical axis, accounting for -0.10° and 0.11°, respectively. Other motions were minute and accompanied by large interindividual variation. The present study provides evidence of different SIJ motions than reported previously when exerted by physiological loading. Sacroiliac joint kinematics were in the sub-degree and sub-millimeter range, in line with previous in vivo and in vitro findings, largely limited to the sagittal rotation and an inferior translation of the sacrum relative to the ilium. This given physiological loading scenario underlines the relevance of the lumbosacral transition when considering the overall motion of the lumbopelvis, and how relatively little the other segments contribute to overall motion.
© 2018 Anatomical Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  digital image correlation; innominate bone motion; nutation; pelvic girdle pain; pubic symphysis; sacroiliac joint kinematics

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30536830      PMCID: PMC6365483          DOI: 10.1111/joa.12924

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anat        ISSN: 0021-8782            Impact factor:   2.610


  77 in total

1.  Description of the iliolumbar ligament for computer-assisted reconstruction.

Authors:  N Hammer; H Steinke; J Böhme; J Stadler; C Josten; K Spanel-Borowski
Journal:  Ann Anat       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 2.698

2.  Functional and radiographic outcome of sacroiliac arthrodesis for the disorders of the sacroiliac joint.

Authors:  Jacob M Buchowski; Khaled M Kebaish; Vladimir Sinkov; David B Cohen; Ann N Sieber; John P Kostuik
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.166

3.  An integrated therapy for peripartum pelvic instability: a study of the biomechanical effects of pelvic belts.

Authors:  A Vleeming; H M Buyruk; R Stoeckart; S Karamursel; C J Snijders
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Transfer of lumbosacral load to iliac bones and legs Part 1: Biomechanics of self-bracing of the sacroiliac joints and its significance for treatment and exercise.

Authors:  C J Snijders; A Vleeming; R Stoeckart
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Triangular Titanium Implants for Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: 2-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective Multicenter Trial.

Authors:  Bradley S Duhon; Fabien Bitan; Harry Lockstadt; Don Kovalsky; Daniel Cher; Travis Hillen
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-04-20

6.  Failure load and displacement of the human sacroiliac joint under in vitro loading.

Authors:  H J Rothkötter; W Berner
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1988

7.  Sciatica-like symptoms and the sacroiliac joint: clinical features and differential diagnosis.

Authors:  L H Visser; P G N Nijssen; C C Tijssen; J J van Middendorp; J Schieving
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  The function of the long dorsal sacroiliac ligament: its implication for understanding low back pain.

Authors:  A Vleeming; A L Pool-Goudzwaard; D Hammudoghlu; R Stoeckart; C J Snijders; J M Mens
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  The percutaneous stabilisation of the sacroiliac joint with hollow modular anchorage screws: a prospective outcome study.

Authors:  Lyndon W Mason; Iqroop Chopra; Khitish Mohanty
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-18       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Diagnostic validity of criteria for sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Karolina M Szadek; Peter van der Wurff; Maurits W van Tulder; Wouter W Zuurmond; Roberto S G M Perez
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2008-12-19       Impact factor: 5.820

View more
  9 in total

1.  Biomechanical analysis of the number of implants for the immediate sacroiliac joint fixation.

Authors:  Roxanne Dubé-Cyr; Carl-Éric Aubin; Isabelle Villemure; Pierre-Jean Arnoux
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-03-23

2.  Sacroiliac innervation.

Authors:  Hanno Steinke; Toshiyuki Saito; Janne Kuehner; Uta Reibetanz; Christoph-Eckhard Heyde; Masahiro Itoh; Anna Voelker
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 2.721

3.  In Silico Pelvis and Sacroiliac Joint Motion: Refining a Model of the Human Osteoligamentous Pelvis for Assessing Physiological Load Deformation Using an Inverted Validation Approach.

Authors:  Maziar Ramezani; Stefan Klima; Paul Le Clerc de la Herverie; Jean Campo; Jean-Baptiste Le Joncour; Corentin Rouquette; Mario Scholze; Niels Hammer
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Comparative Analysis of Optoelectronic Accuracy in the Laboratory Setting Versus Clinical Operative Environment: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Bryan W Cunningham; Daina M Brooks
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2022-04

5.  Primary stability of multi-hole cups compared to plate osteosynthesis in osteoporotic anterior column and posterior hemi-transverse acetabular fractures-A biomechanical comparison.

Authors:  Andreas Höch; Rebekka Reise; Philipp Pieroh; Christoph-Eckhard Heyde; Johannes Karl Maria Fakler; Stefan Schleifenbaum
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments influence in pelvis kinematics.

Authors:  Petr Henyš; Maziar Ramezani; Daniel Schewitz; Andreas Höch; Dustin Möbius; Benjamin Ondruschka; Niels Hammer
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2022-08-20       Impact factor: 2.921

7.  Biomechanical analysis of sacroiliac joint motion following oblique-pulling manipulation with or without pubic symphysis injury.

Authors:  Jing Li; Yikai Li; Ruiyue Ping; Qing Zhang; Hai-Yun Chen; Dingkun Lin; Ji Qi
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-09-20

8.  A Tribological Comparison of Facet Joint, Sacroiliac Joint, and Knee Cartilage in the Yucatan Minipig.

Authors:  Rachel C Nordberg; M Gabriela Espinosa; Jerry C Hu; Kyriacos A Athanasiou
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Finite element analysis of load transition on sacroiliac joint during bipedal walking.

Authors:  Ryota Toyohara; Daisuke Kurosawa; Niels Hammer; Michael Werner; Keita Honda; Yusuke Sekiguchi; Shin-Ichi Izumi; Eiichi Murakami; Hiroshi Ozawa; Toshiro Ohashi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.