2017
DOI: 10.1097/brs.0000000000002176
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of Cervical Spinal Joint Loading and Secondary Motion Using a Musculoskeletal Multibody Dynamics Model Via Force-Dependent Kinematics Approach

Abstract: N /A.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, cervical spinal loading is affected by the surrounding soft tissues and mobile instantaneous center of rotations. 31 For reliable prediction of in vivo cervical spinal loading pattern, the established cervical spine MBD model should correspond to the natural biomechanical surrounding and realistic kinematics features. Traditionally, the amplitudes of ROMs at disk levels are used to characterize the kinematics features of cervical spine throughout the entire motion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, cervical spinal loading is affected by the surrounding soft tissues and mobile instantaneous center of rotations. 31 For reliable prediction of in vivo cervical spinal loading pattern, the established cervical spine MBD model should correspond to the natural biomechanical surrounding and realistic kinematics features. Traditionally, the amplitudes of ROMs at disk levels are used to characterize the kinematics features of cervical spine throughout the entire motion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A previously developed cervical spine MSK MBD model was used as a basis for the biomechanical analysis ( Figure 1). 31 This cervical spine model was constructed in the commercial software AnyBody Modeling System (version 6.0; AnyBody Technology, Aalborg, Denmark). In this model, intervertebral disks were defined as 6-degree-of-freedom (DOF) joints, allowing translation and rotation in all directions.…”
Section: Msk Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 a). The thickness and the area of articular cartilage were 0.5 mm and 80–100 mm 2 , respectively [ 13 15 ]. In the IVDs, the volume of the nucleus pulposus accounted for approximately 40%; the nucleus pulposus and annulus grounds were defined as incompressible hyperelastic fluid using a Moony–Rivlin model [ 16 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previously, experimental studies ( Panjabi et al, 1986 , 2001 ; Wheeldon et al, 2006 ; Ackland et al, 2011 ; Suderman and Vasavada, 2017 ) measured load-displacement behavior, muscle moment arm, or the range of motion in flexion, extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation. In addition, computational studies either based on the finite element ( Mesfar and Moglo, 2013 ; Bredbenner et al, 2014 ; Mustafy et al, 2014 ; Lasswell et al, 2017 ), inverse dynamic ( Anderst et al, 2013 ; Diao et al, 2018 , 2017 ), or forward dynamic models ( Sartori et al, 2014 ; Silvestros et al, 2019 ) investigated the effect of variation in geometrical or material properties on the cervical spine loads, motion, or muscle force. However, in an asymptomatic population, quantification of the differences in spinal loads, segment translations, or muscle activity in a neutral posture needs further attention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%