The morphology and biomechanics of latissimus dorsi

Bogduk, Nikolai; Johnson, Garth; Spalding, D.

doi:10.1016/s0268-0033(98)00102-8

Cited by 114 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 3 of Bogduk et al (1998) illustrates the thirteen fascicles on each side: five from the tips of the lumbar spinous processes, six from the lower six thoracic spinous processes, and costal fibers from the 11th and 12th ribs, which have been replicated in our model (Fig. 2e).…”

Section: Muscle Anatomymentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The attachment points for the latissimus dorsi muscle fascicles in our model were based on the comprehensive architectural study undertaken by Bogduk et al (1998). Figure 3 of Bogduk et al (1998) illustrates the thirteen fascicles on each side: five from the tips of the lumbar spinous processes, six from the lower six thoracic spinous processes, and costal fibers from the 11th and 12th ribs, which have been replicated in our model (Fig.…”

Section: Muscle Anatomymentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Following the description by Bogduk (2005), this muscle group has been divided into four main components: the longissimus thoracis pars lumborum (LTpL), the longissimus thoracis pars thoracis (LTpT), the iliocostalis lumborum pars thoracis (ILpT), and the iliocostalis lumborum pars lumborum (ILpL). The incorporation of these muscle groups into the model are depicted in Fig.…”

Section: Muscle Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Musculoskeletal model for the lumbar spine

Christophy

Senan

Lotz

et al. 2011

Biomech Model Mechanobiol

261

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new musculoskeletal model for the lumbar spine is described in this paper. This model features a rigid pelvis and sacrum, the five lumbar vertebrae, and a rigid torso consisting of a lumped thoracic spine and ribcage. The motion of the individual lumbar vertebrae was defined as a fraction of the net lumbar movement about the three rotational degrees of freedom: flexion-extension lateral bending, and axial rotation. Additionally, the eight main muscle groups of the lumbar spine were incorporated using 238 muscle fascicles with prescriptions for the parameters in the Hill-type muscle models obtained with the help of an extensive literature survey. The features of the model include the abilities to predict joint reactions, muscle forces, and muscle activation patterns. To illustrate the capabilities of the model and validate its physiological similarity, the model's predictions for the moment arms of the muscles are shown for a range of flexion-extension motions of the lower back. The model uses the OpenSim platform and is freely available on https://www.simtk.org/home/lumbarspine to other spinal researchers interested in analyzing the kinematics of the spine. The model can also be integrated with existing OpenSim models to build more comprehensive models of the human body.

show abstract

Section: Muscle Anatomymentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Muscle Anatomymentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Muscle Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Musculoskeletal model for the lumbar spine

Christophy

Senan

Lotz

et al. 2011

Biomech Model Mechanobiol

261

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consideration of several fascicles instead of just one for oblique muscles (EO and IO) has influenced the estimated spinal loads significantly in asymmetric lifting tasks but only slightly in symmetric ones [21]. Indirect effect of the transverse abdominal and latissimus dorsi muscles in unloading the spine through lumbodorsal fascia have been reported not being sizable during lifting tasks [11,15,61,65,70,95]. Moreover, the likely mechanical effects of the intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), neglected in this study, have been found to depend on the posture and the co-activity level of abdominal muscles [7].…”

Section: Methodological Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the well-recognized role of lifting in back injuries, the relative biomechanical merits of squat versus stoop lifting remain controversial. In vivo kinematics measurements and model studies are combined to estimate trunk muscle forces and internal spinal loads under dynamic squat and stoop lifts with and without load in hands. Measurements were performed on healthy subjects to collect segmental rotations during lifts needed as input data in subsequent model studies. The model accounted for nonlinear properties of the ligamentous spine, wrapping of thoracic extensor muscles to take curved paths in flexion and trunk dynamic characteristics (inertia and damping) while subject to measured kinematics and gravity/ external loads. A dynamic kinematics-driven approach was employed accounting for the spinal synergy by simultaneous consideration of passive structures and muscle forces under given posture and loads. Results satisfied kinematics and dynamic equilibrium conditions at all levels and directions. Net moments, muscle forces at different levels, passive (muscle or ligamentous) forces and internal compression/shear forces were larger in stoop lifts than in squat ones. These were due to significantly larger thorax, lumbar and pelvis rotations in stoop lifts. For the relatively slow lifting tasks performed in this study with the lowering and lifting phases each lasting~2 s, the effect of inertia and damping was not, in general, important. Moreover, posterior shift in the position of the external load in stoop lift reaching the same lever arm with respect to the S1 as that in squat lift did not influence the conclusion of this study on the merits of squat lifts over stoop ones. Results, for the tasks considered, advocate squat lifting over stoop lifting as the technique of choice in reducing net moments, muscle forces and internal spinal loads (i.e., moment, compression and shear force).

show abstract

“…The volume of the fascicle was measured by submerging it in water, with no splash or loss of water and allowing time for any bubbles to rise to the surface, in a calibrated 100 milliliter (ml) measuring cylinder (VOLAC, Poulten and Graf, Barking, UK) and recording the fluid displacement to the nearest ml after the fascicle had sunk. The PCSA of each fascicle was calculated by dividing fascicle volume by length (Johnson et al, 1994;Bogduk et al, 1998;Phillips et al, 2008).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel cadaveric study of the morphometry of the serratus anterior muscle: one part, two parts, three parts, four?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

calculated. Three subdivisions of serratus anterior were identified. A new finding was the discovery of two distinctive fascicles attached to the superior and inferior aspects of rib 2.The rib 2 inferior fascicle had the largest PCSA (mean 1.6 cm 2 ) and attached, with the rib 3 fascicle, along the medial border of scapula to form the middle division. The rib 2 superior and rib 1 fascicles attached to the superior angle of scapula (upper division).Fascicles from ribs 4 to 8/9 attached to the inferior angle of scapula (lower division).Mean fascicle angle relative to a vertical midline reference and PCSA for each division were 29 o and 1.3 cm 2 (upper), 90 o and 2.2 cm 2 (middle), and 59 o and 3.0 cm 2 (lower).This novel study demonstrated the presence of morphologically distinct serratus anterior subdivisions. The results of this study will inform the development of optimal techniques for the assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of this architecturally complex muscle in shoulder and neck pain.

show abstract

The morphology and biomechanics of latissimus dorsi

Cited by 114 publications

References 21 publications

A Musculoskeletal model for the lumbar spine

A Musculoskeletal model for the lumbar spine

Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads

A novel cadaveric study of the morphometry of the serratus anterior muscle: one part, two parts, three parts, four?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About