Validity of evaluating spinal kinetics without participant-specific kinematics.

Autor: Yan C; Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States., Lynch AC; Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States., Alemi MM; Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States., Banks JJ; Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States., Bouxsein ML; Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States., Anderson DE; Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States. Electronic address: danders7@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of biomechanics [J Biomech] 2023 Dec; Vol. 161, pp. 111821. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Sep 28.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2023.111821
Abstrakt: Musculoskeletal models are commonly used to estimate in vivo spinal loads under various loading conditions. Typically, participant-specific measured kinematics (PSMK) are coupled with participant-specific models, but obtaining PSMK data can be costly and infeasible in large studies or clinical practice. Thus, we evaluated two alternative methods to estimate spinal loads without PSMK: 1) ensemble average kinematics (EAK) based on kinematics from all participants; and 2) using separately measured individual kinematics (SMIK) from multiple other participants as inputs, then averaging the resulting loads. This study compares the dynamic spine loading patterns and peak loads in older adults performing five lifting tasks using PSMK, EAK and SMIK. Median root mean square errors of EAK and SMIK methods versus PSMK ranged from 18 to 72% body weight for compressive loads and from 2 to 25% body weight for shear loads, with median cross-correlations ranging from 0.931 to 0.991. The root mean square errors and cross-correlations between repeated PSMK trials fell within similar ranges. Compressive peak loads evaluated by EAK and SMIK were not different than PSMK in 12 of 15 cases, while by comparison repeated PSMK trials were not different in 13 of 15 cases. Overall, the resulting spine loading magnitudes and profiles using EAK or SMIK were not notably different than using a PSMK approach, and differences were not greater than between two PSMK trials. Thus, these findings indicate that these approaches may be used to make reasonable estimates of dynamic spinal loading without direct measurement of participant kinematics.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: