Sensitivity of the Cervical Disc Loads, Translations, Intradiscal Pressure, and Muscle Activity Due to Segmental Mass, Disc Stiffness, and Muscle Strength in an Upright Neutral Posture

Abstract

Musculoskeletal disorders of the cervical spine have increased considerably in recent times. To understand the effects of various biomechanical factors, quantifying the differences in disc loads, motion, and muscle force/activity is necessary. The kinematic, kinetic, or muscle response may vary in a neutral posture due to interindividual differences in segmental mass, cervical disc stiffness, and muscle strength. Therefore, our study aimed to develop an inverse dynamic model of the cervical spine, estimate the differences in disc loads, translations, intradiscal pressure, and muscle force/activity in a neutral posture and compare these results with data available in the literature. A head–neck complex with nine segments (head, C1–T1) was developed with joints having three rotational and three translational degrees of freedom, 517 nonlinear ligament fibers, and 258 muscle fascicles. A sensitivity analysis was performed to calculate the effect of segmental mass (5th to 95th percentile), translational disc stiffness (0.5–1.5), and muscle strength (0.5–1.5) on the cervical disc loads (C2–C3 to C7–T1), disc translations, intradiscal pressure, and muscle force/activity in a neutral posture. In addition, two axial external load conditions (0 and 40 N) were also considered on the head. The estimated intradiscal pressures (0.2–0.56 MPa) at 0 N axial load were comparable to in vivo measurements found in the literature, whereas at 40 N, the values were 0.39–0.93 MPa. With increased segmental mass (5th to 95th), the disc loads, translations, and muscle forces/activities increased to 69% at 0 N and 34% at 40 N axial load. With increased disc stiffness (0.5–1.5), the maximum differences in axial (<1%) and shear loads (4%) were trivial; however, the translations were reduced by 67%, whereas the differences in individual muscle group forces/activities varied largely. With increased muscle strength (0.5–1.5), the muscle activity decreased by 200%. For 40 vs. 0 N, the differences in disc loads, translations, and muscle forces/activities were in the range of 52–129%. Significant differences were estimated in disc loads, translations, and muscle force/activity in the normal population, which could help distinguish between normal and pathological cervical spine conditions.

Rotation-traction manipulation induced intradiskal pressure changes in cervical spine—an in vitro study

“…The intervertebral disc occupies one-third of the spinal column’s height. Its primary function is to evenly distribute loads and allow for minor spinal movements ( Holck, 2010 ; Nnwell et al, 2017 ; Rizwan et al, 2022 ). It forms a closed buffer system against gravity and tension, composed of the annulus fibrosus, nucleus pulposus, and cartilaginous endplates.…”

Tension-activated nanofiber patches delivering an anti-inflammatory drug improve repair in a goat intervertebral disc herniation model

“…This PDF file includes: Materials and Methods Fig. S1 to S14 Table S1 References (48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60) Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following:…”