The purposes of this study were to estimate head and trunk’s (HT) radii of gyration (K) and moments of inertia (I) in able-bodied and unbraced scoliotic girls using an angular momentum method, to test if the use of mean ratios calculated in this study and given by de Leva present similar values compared to the experimental data, and to determine how these methods behave in estimation of scoliotic HT’s K and I with variable Cobb angles.
Background:
Scoliotic HT’s I estimated from anthropometric tables can lead to error in joint muscle moment calculations.
Method:
Twenty-one unbraced scoliotic and 20 able-bodied girls participated. HT’s I values were calculated using an angular momentum method.
Results:
Angular momentum method provided greater HT’s I for the scoliotic group compared with the able-bodied girls. HT’s I obtained by the mean ratios calculated from this study were close to the measured values. Compared with the experimental I, de Leva method provided significantly lower I in the scoliotic group. Scoliotic HT’s K and I obtained from angular momentum method showed greater correlations with the Cobb angles.
Conclusion:
The use of mean ratios obtained in this study to estimate HT’s K values in unbraced scoliotic girls could overcome the drawbacks of current anthropometric methods.
Application:
These results can be used to calculate more precise moments of force during daily activities in scoliotic girls with mild scoliosis and to improve the design of corrective flexible body braces prescribed in cases of rapid interventions in young patients of moderate spinal deformities.
Achard de LeluardièreF.HajriL. N.LacoutureP.DuboyJ.FrelutM. L.PeresG. (2006). Validation and influence of anthropometric and kinematic models of obese teenagers in vertical jump performance and mechanical internal energy expenditure. Gait and Posture, 23, 149–158.
2.
AubinC. E.LabelleH.RuszkowskiA.PetitY.GignacD.JoncasJ.DansereauJ. (1999). Variability of strap tension in brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 24, 349–354.
3.
BunnelW. P. (1986). The natural history of idiopathic scoliosis before skeletal maturity. Spine, 11, 773–776.
4.
CarpenterM. G.FrankJ. S.WinterD. A.PeysarG. W. (2001). Sampling duration effects on centre of pressure summary measures. Gait and Posture, 13, 35–40.
5.
ChandlerR. F.ClauserC. E.McConvilleJ. T.ReynoldsH. M.YoungJ. W. (1975). Investigation of inertia properties of the human body (AMRL Tech. Rep. 74-137). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
6.
ChengC. K.ChenH. H.ChenC. S.ChenC. L.ChenC. Y. (2000). Segment inertial properties of Chinese adults determined from magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical Biomechanics, 15, 559–566.
7.
ChengC. K.ChenH. H.KuoH. H. (1998). A three-dimensional mathematical model for predicting spinal joint force distribution during manual lifting. Clinical Biomechanics13(Suppl. 1), S59–64.
8.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
9.
CoillardC.LerouxM. A.ZabjekK. F.RivardC. H. (2003). SpineCor: A non-rigid brace for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis: Post-treatment results. European Spine Journal, 12, 141–148.
10.
DamavandiM.BarbierF.LeboucherJ.FarahpourN.AllardP. (2009). Effect of the calculation methods on body moment of inertia estimations in individuals of different morphology. Medical Engineering and Physics, 31, 880–886.
11.
DamavandiM.DalleauG.StylianidesG.RivardC. H.AllardP. (2013). Head and trunk mass and center of mass position estimation in able-bodied and scoliotic girls. Medical Engineering and Physics, 35, 1607–1612.
12.
DamavandiM.FarahpourN.AllardP. (2009). Determination of body segment masses and centers of mass using a force plate method in individuals of different morphology. Medical Engineering and Physics, 31, 1187–1194.
13.
DamavandiM.StylianidesG.FarahpourN.AllardP. (2011). Head and trunk segment moments of inertia estimation using angular momentum technique: Validity and sensitivity analysis. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 58, 1278–1285.
14.
DanielssonA. J.RombergK.NachemsonA. L. (2006). Spinal range of motion, muscle endurance, and back pain and function at least 20 years after fusion or brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A case–control study. Spine, 31, 275–283.
15.
de LevaP. (1996). Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov’s segment inertial parameters. Journal of Biomechanics, 29, 1223–1230.
16.
DempsterW. T. (1955). Space requirements for the seated operator (WADC Tech. Rep. 55-159). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Wright Air Development Center.
17.
DurkinJ. L.DowlingJ. J. (2003). Analysis of body segment parameter differences between four human populations and the estimation errors of four popular mathematical models. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 125, 515–522.
18.
GoldbergC. J.KaliszerM.MooreD. P.FogartyE. E.DowlingF. E. (2001). Surface topography, Cobb angles, and cosmetic change in scoliosis. Spine, 26, E55–63.
19.
HanavanE. P. (1964). A mathematical model of the human body (AMRL Tech. Rep. 64-102). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
20.
HatzeH. (1980). A mathematical model for the computational determination of parameter values of anthropometric segments. Journal of Biomechanics, 13, 833–843.
21.
HuangH. K.SuarezF. R. (1983). Evaluation of cross-sectional geometry and mass density distributions of humans and laboratory animals using computerized tomography. Journal of Biomechanics, 16, 821–832.
22.
JensenR. K. (1978). Estimation of the biomechanical properties of three body types using a photogrammetric method. Journal of Biomechanics, 11, 349–358.
23.
JensenR. K. (1986). Body segment mass, radius and radius of gyration proportions of children. Journal of Biomechanics, 19, 359–368.
24.
KwonY.-H. (1999). Kwon3D motion analysis. Retrieved from http://kwon3d.com/
25.
LarivièreC.GagnonD. (1999). The L5/S1 joint moment sensitivity to measurement errors in dynamic 3D multisegment lifting models. Human Movement Science, 18, 573–587.
26.
Le BlancR.LabelleH.RivardC. H.PoitrasB. (1997). Relation between adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and morphologic somatotypes. Spine, 22, 2532–2536.
27.
Le BlancR.LabelleH.RivardC. H.PoitrasB.KratzenbergJ. (1996). Three-dimensional (3D) postural evaluation of normal and scoliotic adolescents. Annales de Chirurgie, 50, 631–636.
28.
LenkeL. G.EngsbergJ. R.RossS. A.ReitenbachA.BlankeK.BridwellK. H. (2001). Prospective dynamic functional evaluation of gait and spinal balance following spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 26, E330–E337.
29.
LindhM. (1978). Energy expenditure during walking in patients with scoliosis: The effect of the Milwaukee Brace. Spine, 3, 313–318.
30.
MahaudensP.BanseX.MousnyM.DetrembleurC. (2009). Gait in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Kinematics and electromyographic analysis. European Spine Journal, 18, 512–521.
31.
MahaudensP.ThonnardJ. L.DetrembleurC. (2005). Influence of structural pelvic disorders during standing and walking in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Journal, 5, 427–433.
32.
MassoP. D.GortonG. E.3rd. (2000). Quantifying changes in standing body segment alignment following spinal instrumentation and fusion idiopathic scoliosis using and optoelectronic measurement system. Spine, 25, 457–462.
33.
McConvilleJ. T.ChurchillT. D.KalepsI.ClauserC. E.CuzziJ. (1980). Anthropometric relationships of body and body segments moments of inertia (AMRL Tech. Rep. 80-119). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
34.
MungioleM.MartinP. E. (1990). Estimating segment inertial properties: Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with existing methods. Journal of Biomechanics, 23, 1039–1046.
35.
MurrayM. P.SeiregA.ScholzR. C. (1967). Center of gravity, center of pressure and supportive forces during human activities. Journal of Applied Physiology, 23, 831–838.
36.
NaultM. L.AllardP.HinseS.Le BlancR.CaronO.LabelleH.SadeghiH. (2002). Relations between standing stability and body posture parameters in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 27, 1911–1917.
37.
NikolovaG. S.ToshevY. E. (2007). Estimation of male and female body segment parameters of the Bulgarian population using a 16-segmental mathematical model. Journal of Biomechanics40, 3700–3707.
38.
PearsallD. J.ReidJ. G.RosstR. (1994). Inertial properties of the human trunk of males determined from magnetic resonance imaging. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 22, 692–706.
39.
RamirezN.JohnstonC. E.BrowneR. H. (1997). The prevalence of back pain in children who have idiopathic scoliosis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 79, 364–368.
40.
ReidJ. D.JensenR. K. (1990). Human body segment inertia parameters: A survey and status report. Exercise and Sport Science Review, 18, 225–241.
41.
SchuffelbargerH. L.KeiserR. P.KingW. (1983). Nonoperative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis: A 10-year study. Orthopedic Transactions, 7, 11–13.
42.
ThorstenssonA.NilssonJ.CarlsonH.ZomleferM. R. (1984). Trunk movements in human locomotion. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 121, 9–22.
43.
WessbergP.DanielsonB. I.WillénJ. (2006). Comparison of Cobb angles in idiopathic scoliosis on standing radiographs and supine axially loaded MRI. Spine, 31, 3039–3044.
44.
WickeJ.DumasG. A.CostiganP. A. (2009). A comparison between a new model and current models for estimating trunk segment inertial parameters. Journal of Biomechanics, 42, 55–60.
45.
WinterD. A. (2004). Calculation of velocity and acceleration. In Biomechanics and motor control of human movement (3rd ed., pp. 54–56). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
46.
ZatsiorskyV. M.SeluyanovV. N. (1983). The mass and inertial characteristics of the main segments of the human body. In MatsuiH.KobayashiK (Eds.), Biomechanics VIII-B (pp. 1152–1159). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
47.
ZatsiorskyV. M. (2002). Kinetics of human motion. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
