» Articles » PMID: 34178959

Load Distribution in the Lumbar Spine During Modeled Compression Depends on Lordosis

Overview
Date 2021 Jun 28
PMID 34178959
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Excessive or incorrect loading of lumbar spinal structures is commonly assumed as one of the factors to accelerate degenerative processes, which may lead to lower back pain. Accordingly, the mechanics of the spine under medical conditions, such as scoliosis or spondylolisthesis, is well-investigated. Treatments via both conventional therapy and surgical methods alike aim at restoring a "healthy" (or at least pain-free) load distribution. Yet, surprisingly little is known about the inter-subject variability of load bearings within a "healthy" lumbar spine. Hence, we utilized computer tomography data from 28 trauma-room patients, whose lumbar spines showed no visible sign of degeneration, to construct simplified multi-body simulation models. The subject-specific geometries, measured by the corresponding lumbar lordosis (LL) between the endplates of vertebra L1 and the sacrum, served as ceteris paribus condition in a standardized forward dynamic compression procedure. Further, the influence of stimulating muscles from the group was assessed. For the range of available LL from 28 to 66°, changes in compressive and shear forces, bending moments, as well as facet joint forces between adjacent vertebrae were calculated. While compressive forces tended to decrease with increasing LL, facet forces were tendentiously increasing. Shear forces decreased between more cranial vertebrae and increased between more caudal ones, while bending moments remained constant. Our results suggest that there exist significant, LL-dependent variations in the loading of "healthy" spinal structures, which should be considered when striving for individually appropriate therapeutic measures.

Citing Articles

Identification of a lumped-parameter model of the intervertebral joint from experimental data.

Gould S, Davico G, Palanca M, Viceconti M, Cristofolini L Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 12:1304334.

PMID: 39104629 PMC: 11298350. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1304334.


Biomechanical analysis of the tandem spinal external fixation in a multiple-level noncontiguous lumbar fractures model: a finite element analysis.

Chen H, Kang Y, Yan Y, Wang H, Peng W, Liao Y Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 12:1395197.

PMID: 38962665 PMC: 11219947. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1395197.


Musculoskeletal spine modeling in large patient cohorts: how morphological individualization affects lumbar load estimation.

Lerchl T, Nispel K, Bodden J, Sekuboyina A, El Husseini M, Fritzsche C Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 12:1363081.

PMID: 38933541 PMC: 11199547. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1363081.


Invasiveness of decompression surgery affects modeled lumbar spine kinetics in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Kosterhon M, Muller A, Rockenfeller R, Aiyangar A, Gruber K, Ringel F Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 11:1281119.

PMID: 38260753 PMC: 10801739. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1281119.


Effect of neglecting passive spinal structures: a quantitative investigation using the forward-dynamics and inverse-dynamics musculoskeletal approach.

Meszaros-Beller L, Hammer M, Schmitt S, Pivonka P Front Physiol. 2023; 14:1135531.

PMID: 37324394 PMC: 10264677. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1135531.


References
1.
Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J . Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(3):346-53. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000152379.54463.65. View

2.
Bruno A, Anderson D, DAgostino J, Bouxsein M . The effect of thoracic kyphosis and sagittal plane alignment on vertebral compressive loading. J Bone Miner Res. 2012; 27(10):2144-51. PMC: 3431452. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.1658. View

3.
Kamaz M, Kiresi D, Oguz H, Emlik D, Levendoglu F . CT measurement of trunk muscle areas in patients with chronic low back pain. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007; 13(3):144-8. View

4.
Been E, Kalichman L . Lumbar lordosis. Spine J. 2013; 14(1):87-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.464. View

5.
Macintosh J, Bogduk N . The biomechanics of the lumbar multifidus. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2013; 1(4):205-13. DOI: 10.1016/0268-0033(86)90147-6. View