Sensitivity of musculoskeletal model-based lumbar spinal loading estimates to type of kinematic input and passive stiffness properties.

J Biomech

Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. Electronic address:

Published: March 2020

The study investigated the potential for obtaining more accurate spine joint reaction force (JRF) estimates from musculoskeletal models by incorporating dynamic stereo X-ray imaging (DSX)-based in vivo lumbar vertebral rotational and translational kinematics compared to generic, rhythm (RHY)-based kinematics, while also observing the influence of accompanying inputs: intervertebral segment stiffness and neutral state. A full-body OpenSim® musculoskeletal model, constructed by combining existing lower- and upper-body models, was driven based on one volunteer's (female; age 25; 60.8 kg; 176 cm) anthropometrics and kinematics from a series of upright standing and straight-legged dynamic lifting tasks. The lumbar spine portion was modified in a step-wise manner to observe effects of: (1) RHY vs. DSX lumbar kinematics; (2) No disc (bushing) stiffness (NBS); generic, linear bushing stiffness (LBS); subject-specific nonlinear bushing stiffness (NLBS); (3) Upright standing (UP) vs. Supine (SUP) neutral state; (4) Weight lifted: 4.5 kg vs. 13.6 kg. L4L5 JRF from 24 model variations based on combinations of aforementioned parameters were compared. Rhythm-based kinematics without translational components tends to over-predict JRF (31% and 39% for compression and shear, respectively) compared to DSX-based kinematics. Additionally, differences due to accompanying passive stiffness and neutral state choice combinations were even larger (>50%), indicating heightened demand on the quality of these accompanying inputs. The study not only highlights model sensitivity to choices made regarding the three primary inputs-kinematics, passive stiffness and neutral state- separately, but also how interactions between these choices can result in significant variability in joint loading estimates.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109659DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

passive stiffness
12
stiffness neutral
12
neutral state
12
bushing stiffness
12
loading estimates
8
accompanying inputs
8
upright standing
8
stiffness
7
kinematics
6
sensitivity musculoskeletal
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!