Biomechanical comparison between concentrated, follower, and muscular loads of the lumbar column

Kao Shang Shih, Pei Wei Weng, Shang Chih Lin, Yi Tzu Chen, Cheng Kung Cheng, Chian Her Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Experimental and numerical methods have been extensively used to simulate the lumbar kinematics and mechanics. One of the basic parameters is the lumbar loads. In the literature, both concentrated and distributed loads have been assumed to simulate the in vivo lumbar loads. However, the inconsistent loads between those studies exist and make the comparison of their results controversial. Using finite-element method, this study aimed to numerically compare the effects of the concentrated, follower, and muscular loads on the lumbar biomechanics during flexion. Two conditions of equivalent and simple constraints were simulated. The equivalent condition assumes the identical flexion at the L1 level and loads at the L5 level for the three types of loads. Another condition is to remove such kinematic and mechanical constraints on the lumbar. The comparison indices were flexed profile, distributed stress, and transferred loads of the discs and vertebrae at the different levels. The results showed that the three modes in the equivalent condition show the nearly same flexed profiles. In the simple condition, however, the L1 vertebra of the concentrated mode anteriorly translates about 3 and 5 times that of the follower and muscular mode, respectively. By contrast, the flexion profiles of the follower and muscular are comparable. In the equivalent condition, all modes consistently show the gradually increasing stress and loads toward the caudal levels. The results of both concentrated and muscular modes exhibit the quite comparable trends and even magnitudes. In the simple condition, however, the removal of flexion and load constraints makes the results of the concentrated mode significantly different from its counterparts. In both conditions, the predictedindices of the follower mode are more uniform along the lumbar. In conclusion, the kinematic and mechanical constraints significantly affect the profile, stress, and loads of the three modes. In the equivalent condition, the concentrated mode can simulate the similar results to the muscular mode and top-loading fashion seems to be more practicable for experimental setup. In the simple condition, the follower mode can serve as the alternative to avoid the unreasonably higher flexion at the L1 level and shear at the L5 level. In the future, the detailed studies about the load-related effects on both load-transferring mechanism and failure mode of the lumbar-implant construct should be conducted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)209-218
Number of pages10
JournalComputer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
Volume135
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Biomechanical Phenomena
Loads (forces)
Kinematics
Spine
Biomechanics
Failure modes
Numerical methods
Mechanics
Finite element method

Keywords

  • Concentrated load
  • Finite element
  • Follower load
  • Lumbar
  • Muscle force

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Software
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Biomechanical comparison between concentrated, follower, and muscular loads of the lumbar column. / Shih, Kao Shang; Weng, Pei Wei; Lin, Shang Chih; Chen, Yi Tzu; Cheng, Cheng Kung; Lee, Chian Her.

In: Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, Vol. 135, 01.10.2016, p. 209-218.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1a43b0999879424d86202f9aba544cad,
title = "Biomechanical comparison between concentrated, follower, and muscular loads of the lumbar column",
abstract = "Experimental and numerical methods have been extensively used to simulate the lumbar kinematics and mechanics. One of the basic parameters is the lumbar loads. In the literature, both concentrated and distributed loads have been assumed to simulate the in vivo lumbar loads. However, the inconsistent loads between those studies exist and make the comparison of their results controversial. Using finite-element method, this study aimed to numerically compare the effects of the concentrated, follower, and muscular loads on the lumbar biomechanics during flexion. Two conditions of equivalent and simple constraints were simulated. The equivalent condition assumes the identical flexion at the L1 level and loads at the L5 level for the three types of loads. Another condition is to remove such kinematic and mechanical constraints on the lumbar. The comparison indices were flexed profile, distributed stress, and transferred loads of the discs and vertebrae at the different levels. The results showed that the three modes in the equivalent condition show the nearly same flexed profiles. In the simple condition, however, the L1 vertebra of the concentrated mode anteriorly translates about 3 and 5 times that of the follower and muscular mode, respectively. By contrast, the flexion profiles of the follower and muscular are comparable. In the equivalent condition, all modes consistently show the gradually increasing stress and loads toward the caudal levels. The results of both concentrated and muscular modes exhibit the quite comparable trends and even magnitudes. In the simple condition, however, the removal of flexion and load constraints makes the results of the concentrated mode significantly different from its counterparts. In both conditions, the predictedindices of the follower mode are more uniform along the lumbar. In conclusion, the kinematic and mechanical constraints significantly affect the profile, stress, and loads of the three modes. In the equivalent condition, the concentrated mode can simulate the similar results to the muscular mode and top-loading fashion seems to be more practicable for experimental setup. In the simple condition, the follower mode can serve as the alternative to avoid the unreasonably higher flexion at the L1 level and shear at the L5 level. In the future, the detailed studies about the load-related effects on both load-transferring mechanism and failure mode of the lumbar-implant construct should be conducted.",
keywords = "Concentrated load, Finite element, Follower load, Lumbar, Muscle force",
author = "Shih, {Kao Shang} and Weng, {Pei Wei} and Lin, {Shang Chih} and Chen, {Yi Tzu} and Cheng, {Cheng Kung} and Lee, {Chian Her}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.07.021",
language = "English",
volume = "135",
pages = "209--218",
journal = "Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine",
issn = "0169-2607",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical comparison between concentrated, follower, and muscular loads of the lumbar column

AU - Shih, Kao Shang

AU - Weng, Pei Wei

AU - Lin, Shang Chih

AU - Chen, Yi Tzu

AU - Cheng, Cheng Kung

AU - Lee, Chian Her

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Experimental and numerical methods have been extensively used to simulate the lumbar kinematics and mechanics. One of the basic parameters is the lumbar loads. In the literature, both concentrated and distributed loads have been assumed to simulate the in vivo lumbar loads. However, the inconsistent loads between those studies exist and make the comparison of their results controversial. Using finite-element method, this study aimed to numerically compare the effects of the concentrated, follower, and muscular loads on the lumbar biomechanics during flexion. Two conditions of equivalent and simple constraints were simulated. The equivalent condition assumes the identical flexion at the L1 level and loads at the L5 level for the three types of loads. Another condition is to remove such kinematic and mechanical constraints on the lumbar. The comparison indices were flexed profile, distributed stress, and transferred loads of the discs and vertebrae at the different levels. The results showed that the three modes in the equivalent condition show the nearly same flexed profiles. In the simple condition, however, the L1 vertebra of the concentrated mode anteriorly translates about 3 and 5 times that of the follower and muscular mode, respectively. By contrast, the flexion profiles of the follower and muscular are comparable. In the equivalent condition, all modes consistently show the gradually increasing stress and loads toward the caudal levels. The results of both concentrated and muscular modes exhibit the quite comparable trends and even magnitudes. In the simple condition, however, the removal of flexion and load constraints makes the results of the concentrated mode significantly different from its counterparts. In both conditions, the predictedindices of the follower mode are more uniform along the lumbar. In conclusion, the kinematic and mechanical constraints significantly affect the profile, stress, and loads of the three modes. In the equivalent condition, the concentrated mode can simulate the similar results to the muscular mode and top-loading fashion seems to be more practicable for experimental setup. In the simple condition, the follower mode can serve as the alternative to avoid the unreasonably higher flexion at the L1 level and shear at the L5 level. In the future, the detailed studies about the load-related effects on both load-transferring mechanism and failure mode of the lumbar-implant construct should be conducted.

AB - Experimental and numerical methods have been extensively used to simulate the lumbar kinematics and mechanics. One of the basic parameters is the lumbar loads. In the literature, both concentrated and distributed loads have been assumed to simulate the in vivo lumbar loads. However, the inconsistent loads between those studies exist and make the comparison of their results controversial. Using finite-element method, this study aimed to numerically compare the effects of the concentrated, follower, and muscular loads on the lumbar biomechanics during flexion. Two conditions of equivalent and simple constraints were simulated. The equivalent condition assumes the identical flexion at the L1 level and loads at the L5 level for the three types of loads. Another condition is to remove such kinematic and mechanical constraints on the lumbar. The comparison indices were flexed profile, distributed stress, and transferred loads of the discs and vertebrae at the different levels. The results showed that the three modes in the equivalent condition show the nearly same flexed profiles. In the simple condition, however, the L1 vertebra of the concentrated mode anteriorly translates about 3 and 5 times that of the follower and muscular mode, respectively. By contrast, the flexion profiles of the follower and muscular are comparable. In the equivalent condition, all modes consistently show the gradually increasing stress and loads toward the caudal levels. The results of both concentrated and muscular modes exhibit the quite comparable trends and even magnitudes. In the simple condition, however, the removal of flexion and load constraints makes the results of the concentrated mode significantly different from its counterparts. In both conditions, the predictedindices of the follower mode are more uniform along the lumbar. In conclusion, the kinematic and mechanical constraints significantly affect the profile, stress, and loads of the three modes. In the equivalent condition, the concentrated mode can simulate the similar results to the muscular mode and top-loading fashion seems to be more practicable for experimental setup. In the simple condition, the follower mode can serve as the alternative to avoid the unreasonably higher flexion at the L1 level and shear at the L5 level. In the future, the detailed studies about the load-related effects on both load-transferring mechanism and failure mode of the lumbar-implant construct should be conducted.

KW - Concentrated load

KW - Finite element

KW - Follower load

KW - Lumbar

KW - Muscle force

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84981216509&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84981216509&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.07.021

DO - 10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.07.021

M3 - Article

C2 - 27586492

AN - SCOPUS:84981216509

VL - 135

SP - 209

EP - 218

JO - Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

JF - Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

SN - 0169-2607

ER -