Three-Dimensional Movements of the Whole Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Joint

Yamamoto, Isao; Panjabi, Manohar M.; Crisco, Trey; Oxland, Tom

doi:10.1097/00007632-198911000-00020

Cited by 535 publications

(418 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

339

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found observed lateral flexion to the right to be reduced with an abnormal disc form at the level of L2-3. Cadaver [37,48] and in vivo [38] studies found the greatest motion of lateral bending to occur at the level L2-3. Any observable reduction in lateral flexion should be most obvious at this level.…”

Section: Expert Observation Of Posture and Rommentioning

confidence: 94%

Do MRI findings correlate with mobility tests? An explorative analysis of the test validity with regard to structure

Quack

Schenk²,

Laeubli³

et al. 2006

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To find out whether segmental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings such as intervertebral disc degeneration (DD) and facet joint osteoarthritis (FJO) are associated with motion deficiencies as seen in common mobility tests and observed range of motion (ROM). A total of 112 female subjects, nurses and office workers, with and without low back pain, were examined by clinical experts, and lumbar mobility was measured including modified Schober, fingertip-to-floor distance (FTFD) and ZEBRIS motion analysis. An MRI of the lumbar spine was made. Mobility findings were correlated with segmental morphologic changes as seen on MRI at the levels of L1-2 through L5-S1. Only a few statistically significant correlations between MRI findings and the results of the mobility tests could be found. Lateral bending was weakly and negatively correlated to DD and FJO but only on the level of L5-S1. The FTFD showed a weak positive correlation to endplate changes on the level of L4-5. When ROM is observed by clinical experts, there are several significant relationships between MRI findings and the observed motion. There is a highly significant segmental correlation between DD and disc form alteration as seen on MRI on the level of single motion segments. Pain history and current pain level did not moderate any association between MRI and mobility. There is no clear relationship between the structural changes represented by MRI and the measured mobility tests used in this study. Our findings suggest that close observation of spinal motion may provide at least equal information about the influence of spinal structures on motion than the commonly used measured mobility tests do.

show abstract

Section: Expert Observation Of Posture and Rommentioning

confidence: 94%

Do MRI findings correlate with mobility tests? An explorative analysis of the test validity with regard to structure

Quack

Schenk²,

Laeubli³

et al. 2006

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As for the individual lumbar vertebrae, the total lumbar rotation, calculated as the difference between the foregoing two rotations, was partitioned in accordance with the proportions reported in earlier investigations; i.e., 8% at T12-L1, 13% at L1-L2, 16% at L2-L3, 23% at L3-L4, 26% at L4-L5, and 14% at L5-S1 [29, 61,63,64,75].…”

Section: Prescribed Posturesmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…1). The nonlinear load-displacement response under single and combined axial/shear forces and moments along with the flexion versus extension differences were represented in this model based on numerical and measured results of previous single-and multi-motion segment studies [59,60,66,67,75]. In all cases, based on the mean body weight of our subjects and percentage of body weight at each motion segment level reported elsewhere [62,70], a gravity load of 387 N was distributed eccentrically at different segmental levels.…”

Section: Thoracolumbar Finite Element Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of intra-abdominal pressure in the unloading and stabilization of the human spine during static lifting tasks

Arjmand

Shirazi‐Adl

2005

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The beams modeled the overall nonlinear stiffness of T12-S1 motion segments (i.e., vertebrae, disc, facets and ligaments) at different directions and levels. The nonlinear load-displacement response under single and combined loads along with flexion versus extension differences were represented in this model based on numerical and measured results of previous single-and multi-motion segment studies [6,73,80,85,88,104]. The trunk mass and mass moments of inertia were assigned at gravity centers at different levels along the spine based on published data for trunk segments [77,78] and head/arms [105].…”

Section: Thoracolumbar Finite Element Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The total lumbar rotation, calculated as the difference between the foregoing two rotations, was subsequently partitioned in between various segments based on values reported in earlier investigations [3,29,34,76,79,91,104]. Relative proportions of~7, 12,15,22,27 and 17% were used to partition the lumbar rotation between various motion segments from T12 to L5 levels, respectively.…”

Section: Prescribed Posturesmentioning

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

Three-Dimensional Movements of the Whole Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Joint

Cited by 535 publications

References 0 publications

Do MRI findings correlate with mobility tests? An explorative analysis of the test validity with regard to structure

Do MRI findings correlate with mobility tests? An explorative analysis of the test validity with regard to structure

Role of intra-abdominal pressure in the unloading and stabilization of the human spine during static lifting tasks

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About