Trunk muscle parameters determined from MRI for lean to obese males

Wood, Stacy; Pearsall, David J.; Ross, Robert; Jg, Reid

doi:10.1016/0268-0033(95)00018-6

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This agrees with the studies of Bogduk et al (1992), Lee et al (2011), McGill et al (1993, Parkkola et al (1992), and Reid and Costigan (1987) and in the range of Cooper et al (1992) and Guzik et al (1996). However, these are smaller than some previous studies (Lee et al, 2006;Wood et al, 1996) and larger than most previous studies (Anderson et al, 2012;Chaffin et al, 1990;Delp et al, 2001;Han et al, 1992;Jorgensen et al, 2003;Kamaz et al, 2007;Kang et al, 2007;Lin et al, 2001;Marras et al, 2001;McGill et al, 1988;Niemelainen et al, 2011;Reid and Costigan, 1985;Seo et al, 2003;Tracy et al, 1989;Tsuang et al, 1993;Tveit et al, 1994). The differences may be due to differences in sampling (sample size, subject characteristics, etc.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The average subject height and weight in the present study are larger than most previous studies (Han et al, 1992;Kang et al, 2007;Lin et al, 2001;McGill et al, 1988;Seo et al, 2003;Tsuang et al, 1993), which may explain why larger ESM CSAs were observed in the present study. Besides, Wood et al (1996) studied larger male subjects (BMI was 28.6 kg/m 2 ) compared to the present study (BMI was 26.2 kg/m 2 ) and they reported larger ESM CSAs, as expected, than the present study. However, it is not easy to conclude that the differences in ESM CSAs are due only to subject anthropometrics.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…Delp et al (2001) studied cadaveric subjects, which may limit results to be extrapolated to live subjects. Several previous studies quantified ESM size at a single level (i.e., at the L3/L4 (Seo et al, 2003), at the L4 (Cooper et al, 1992), at the L4/L5 (Lee et al, 2006;McGill et al, 1988;Parkkola et al, 1992;Wood et al, 1996), at the L5 (Lee et al, 2011), at the L5/S1 (Lin et al, 2001;Tracy et al, 1989)) or provided an average number for several levels (Delp et al, 2001;Reid and Costigan, 1985). However, having lumbar data from several vertebrae or inter-vertebral disc (IVD) levels may provide better understanding of the muscle structure on the low back region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Morphological investigation of low back erector spinae muscle: Historical data populations

Gungor

Tang

Sesek

et al. 2015

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Morphological investigation of low back erector spinae muscle: Historical data populations

Gungor

Tang

Sesek

et al. 2015

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Linear geometrical scaling was used to combine data from different individuals since Wood et al (1996) have shown that muscle area does not correlate well with trunk area, apparently because of variable amounts of fat tissue. Muscle volumes would be the most sensitive to scaling (scale cubed effect) and more so than PCSAs (scale squared effect) and the attachments (linear effect).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative anatomy of the lumbar musculature

Stokes

Gardner‐Morse

1999

Journal of Biomechanics

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the anatomy of the musculature crossing the lumbar spine in a standardized form to provide data generally suitable for static biomechanical analyses of muscle and spinal forces. The muscular anatomy from several sources was quantified and transformed to the mean bony anatomy of four young healthy adults measured from standing stereo-radiographs. The origins, insertions and physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) of 180 muscle slips which act on the lumbar spine are given relative to the bony anatomy defined by the locations of 12 thoracic and five lumbar vertebrae, and the sacrum, and the shape and positions of the 24 ribs. The broad oblique abdominal muscles are each represented by six vectors and an appropriate proportion of the total PCSA was assigned to each to represent the muscle biomechanics.

show abstract

“…Many studies have tried to obtain precise values for these parameters [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] . Some of them analyzed the relationships between these parameters and physical data such as height and weight 4,7,9,12) . Concerning the moment arm length of the erector spinae, for example, Reid et al 4) found significant correlations with height and weight.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of Trunk Muscle Parameters for a Biomechanical Model by Age, Height and Weight

Seo

Lee

Kusaka

2003

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimation of Trunk Muscle Parameters for a Biomechanical Model by Age, Height and Weight: Akihiko Seo, et al. Department of Intelligent Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Technology—To establish more accurate equations for estimating the moment arm length and cross‐sectional area of the erector spinae and rectus abdominis muscles, the effects of height, weight and age on those muscles were analyzed by using a high‐order polynomial equation. Data on the moment arm length and cross‐sectional area at L3/ 4 were obtained from MRI images of 152 males and 98 females. The statistical model used in this study has any combination of up to third‐order independent variables for age, height and weight. The effective independent variables were selected by the forward step method of multiple regression analyses. The results of multiple regression analyses showed that the polynomial equations for the moment arm length of erector spinae in both genders, and that for the rectus abdominis in males, contained all three variables of age, height and weight. That for the moment arm length of female rectus abdominis contained the variables of weight and age. The multiple correlation coefficients of the erector spinae and rectus abdominis were 0.355 and 0.650 for males, 0.364 and 0.411 for females, respectively. The equations for the cross‐sectional area of the erector spinae in both genders, as well as that for male rectus abdominis contained only one variable (weight). The multiple correlation coefficients of the cross‐sectional area of the erector spinae were 0.576 for males and 0.469 for females. The cross‐sectional area of the female rectus abdominis had no effective variables.

show abstract

Trunk muscle parameters determined from MRI for lean to obese males

Cited by 38 publications

References 13 publications

Morphological investigation of low back erector spinae muscle: Historical data populations

Morphological investigation of low back erector spinae muscle: Historical data populations

Quantitative anatomy of the lumbar musculature

Estimation of Trunk Muscle Parameters for a Biomechanical Model by Age, Height and Weight

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About