Influence of interpersonal geometrical variation on spinal motion segment stiffness

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 14, 2011, Pages

  Meijer, Gerdine J M ^a   Homminga, Jasper ^a   Veldhuizen, Albert G ^b   Verkerke, Gijsbertus J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biomechanics; Finite element analysis; Interpersonal variation; Lumbar spine; Motion segment stiffness; Patient specific modeling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE MARROW; GEOMETRY; LIGAMENT; LORDOSIS; LUMBAR DISK; MECHANICAL TORSION; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE MOBILITY; SPINE STIFFNESS;

HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; LIGAMENTS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MODELS, ANATOMIC; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINE; ZYGAPOPHYSEAL JOINT;

EID: 79960019056     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181fd7f7f     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Potter BK, Rosner MK, Lehman RA, et al. Reliability of end, neutral, and stable vertebrae identification in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2005;30:1658-63. (Pubitemid 41022430)
2. Clamp JAM, Andrews JRF, Grevitt MPF. A study of the radiologic predictors of curve flexibility in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Techniques 2008;21:213-5.
3. Polly DW, Sturm PF. Traction versus supine side bending: which technique best determines curve flexibility? Spine 1998;23:804-8. (Pubitemid 28169208)
4. Klepps SJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Prospective comparison of flexibility radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2001;26:E74-9.
5. Hamzaoglu A, Talu U, Tezer M, et al. Assessment of curve flexibility in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2005;30:1637-42. (Pubitemid 41022427)
6. Cheung KMC, Luk KDK. Prediction of correction of scoliosis with use of the fulcrum bending radiograph. J Bone Joint Surg 1997;79- A:1144-50. (Pubitemid 27365020)
7. Petit Y, Aubin C, Labelle H. Patient-specific mechanical properties of a flexible multi-body model of the scoliotic spine. Med Biol Eng Comput 2004;42:55-60. (Pubitemid 38202161)
8. Aubin CE, Labelle H, Chevrefils C, et al. Preoperative planning simulator for spinal deformity surgeries. Spine 2008;33:2143-52.
9. Davis BJ, Gadgil A, Trivedi J, et al. Traction radiography performed under general anesthetic: a new technique for assessing idiopathic scoliosis curves. Spine 2004;29:2466-70. (Pubitemid 40353304)
10. Robin S, Skalli W, Lavaste F. Influence of geometrical factors on the behaviour of lumbar spine segmetns: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 1994;3:84-90. (Pubitemid 24099159)
11. Natarajan RN, Andersson GBJ. The influence of lumbar disc height and cross-sectional area on the mechanical response of the disc to physiologic loading. Spine 1999;24:1003-9.
12. Lu YM, Hutton WC, Gharpuray VM. Can variations in intervertebral disc height affect the mechanical function of the disc? Spine 1996;21:2208-16.
13. Meijer GJM, Homminga J, Hekman EEG, et al. The effect of three-dimensional geometrical changes during adolescent growth on the biomechanics of a spinal motion segment. J Biomech 2010;43:1590-7.
14. Panjabi MM, Goel V, Oxland T, et al. Human lumbar vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine 1992;17:299-306.
15. Eijkelkamp MF. On the Development of an Artificial Intervertebral Disc. Groningen:Groningen University Press;2002.
16. Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Dar G, et al. Facet orientation in the thorocolumbar spine. Three-dimensional anatomic and biomechanical analysis. Spine 2004;29:1755-63. (Pubitemid 39079917)
17. Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, et al. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 2001;26:E122-9.
18. Lavaste F, Skalli W, Robin S, et al. Three-dimensional geometrical and mechanical modelling of the lumbar spine. J Biomech 1992;25:1153-64.
19. Goel VK, Monroe BT, Gilbertson LG, et al. Interlaminar shear stress and lamine separation in a disc. Finite element analysis of the L3L4 motion segment subjected to axial compressive loads. Spine 1995;20:689-98.
20. Chazal J, Tanguy A, Bourges M, et al. Biomechanical properties of spinal ligaments and a histological study of the supraspinal ligament in traction. J Biomech 1985;18:167-76. (Pubitemid 15112333)
21. Little JS, Khalsa PS. Material properties of the human lumbar facet joint capsule. J Biomech Eng 2005;127:15-24. (Pubitemid 40463477)
22. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott;1978.
23. Neumann P, Keller TS, Ekstrom L, et al. Mechanical properties of the human lumbar anterior longitudinal ligament. J Biomech 1992;25:1185-94.
24. Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Myers T, et al. Biomechanical properties of human lumbar spine ligaments. J Biomech 1992;25:1351-6.
25. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA. Geometric and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligaments. J Biomech Eng 2000;122:623-9. (Pubitemid 32047026)
26. Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 1998;7:148-54. (Pubitemid 28223601)
27. Little JP, Adam CJ. The effect of soft tissue properties on spinal flexibility in scoliosis: biomechanical simulation of fulcrum bending. Spine 2009;34:E76-82.
28. Lafon Y, Lafage V, Steib J-P, et al. In vivo distribution of spinal intervertebral stiffness based on clinical flexibility tests. Spine 2010; 35:186-93.
29. Lamarre M-E, Parent S, Labelle H, et al. Assessment of spinal flexibility in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: suspension versus sidebending radiography. Spine 2009;34:591-7.