Prediction of in vivo lower cervical spinal loading using musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model during the head flexion/extension,lateral bending and axial rotation

Abstract

Cervical spine diseases lead to a heavy economic burden to the individuals and societies. Moreover, frequent post-operative complications mean a higher risk of neck pain and revision. At present, controversy still exists for the etiology of spinal diseases and their associated complications. Knowledge of in vivo cervical spinal loading pattern is proposed to be the key to answer these questions. However, direct acquisition of in vivo cervical spinal loading remains challenging. In this study, a previously developed cervical spine musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model was utilized for spinal loading prediction. The in vivo dynamic segmental contributions to head motion and the out-of-plane coupled motion were both taken into account. First, model validation and sensitivity analysis of different segmental contributions to head motion were performed. For model validation, the predicted intervertebral disk compressive forces were converted into the intradiskal pressures and compared with the published experimental measurements. Significant correlations were found between the predicted values and the experimental results. Thus, the reliability and capability of the cervical spine model was ensured. Meanwhile, the sensitivity analysis indicated that cervical spinal loading is sensitive to different segmental contributions to head motion. Second, the compressive, shear and facet joint forces at C3–C6 disk levels were predicted, during the head flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. Under the head flexion/extension movement, asymmetric loading patterns of the intervertebral disk were obtained. In comparison, symmetrical typed loading patterns were found for the head lateral bending and axial rotation movements. However, the shear forces were dramatically increased during the head excessive extension and lateral bending. Besides, a nonlinear correlation was seen between the facet joint force and the angular displacement. In conclusion, dynamic cervical spinal loading was both intervertebral disk angle-dependent and level-dependent. Cervical spine musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model provides an attempt to comprehend the in vivo biomechanical surrounding of the human head-neck system.

Keywords

Cervical spinal loading dynamic segmental contributions to head motion coupled motion musculoskeletal model multi-body dynamics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

McCarberg

Stanos

D’Arcy

Back and neck pain. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Xin

Evaluation of poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) for cervical disc replacement devices. PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 2013.

Staudt

Das

Duggal

Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review. Neurosurg Rev 2018; 41: 399–407.

Howling

Sakoda

Antonarulrajah

et al . Biological response to wear debris generated in carbon based composites as potential bearing surfaces for artificial hip joints. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 2003; 67B: 758–764.

Goffin

Geusens

Vantomme

et al . Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17(2): 79–85.

Pickett

Mitsis

Sekhon

et al . Effects of a cervical disc prosthesis on segmental and cervical spine alignment. Neurosurg Focus 2004; 17(3): 30–35.

Komura

Miyamoto

Hosoe

et al . Lower incidence of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical fusion found with those fusing C5-6 and C6-7 than those leaving C5-6 or C6-7 as an adjacent level. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; 25(1): 23–29.

Song

Choi

Jeon

et al . Adjacent segment degenerative disease: is it due to disease progression or a fusion-associated phenomenon? Comparison between segments adjacent to the fused and non-fused segments. Eur Spine J 2011; 20: 1940–1945.

Kong

et al . Adjacent segment degeneration after single-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion: disc space distraction and its impact on clinical outcomes. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22: 566–569.

10.

Scheer

Tang

Smith

et al . Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 19: 141–159.

11.

Anderst

WJ.

Narrative review of the in vivo mechanics of the cervical spine after anterior arthrodesis as revealed by dynamic biplane radiography. J Orthop Res 2016; 34: 22–30.

12.

Nachemson

Lumbar intradiscal pressure: experimental studies on post-mortem material. Acta Orthop Scand 1960; 31: 1–104.

13.

Nachemson

AL.

Disc pressure measurements. Spine 1981; 6(1): 93–97.

14.

Cripton

Dumas

Nolte

L-P.

A minimally disruptive technique for measuring intervertebral disc pressure in vitro: application to the cervical spine. J Biomech 2001; 34: 545–549.

15.

Bell

Yan

Debski

et al . Influence of varying compressive loading methods on physiologic motion patterns in the cervical spine. J Biomech 2016; 49: 167–172.

16.

Ekstrom

Holm

et al . In vivo porcine intradiscal pressure as a function of external loading. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17(4): 312–316.

17.

Chen

Zhang

Ardestani

et al . Prediction of in vivo joint mechanics of an artificial knee implant using rigid multi-body dynamics with elastic contacts. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2014; 228: 564–575.

18.

Zhang

Chen

Wang

et al . Prediction of hip joint load and translation using musculoskeletal modelling with force-dependent kinematics and experimental validation. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2015; 229: 477–490.

19.

de Jager

MKJ

. Mathematical head-neck models for acceleration impacts. PhD Thesis, Universiteit of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, 1996.

20.

Khurelbaatar

Kim

Hyuk Kim

A cervico-thoraco-lumbar multibody dynamic model for the estimation of joint loads and muscle forces. J Biomech Eng 2015; 137: 111001.

21.

van der Horst

. Human head neck response in frontal, lateral and rear end impact loading: modelling and validation. PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, 2002.

22.

van den Kroonenberg

Thunnissen

JGM

Wismans

JSHM

. A human model for low-severity rear-impacts. In: Proceedings of the international IRCOBI conference on the biomechanics of impact, Hannover, 24–26 September 1997. Bron: IRCOBI.

23.

Gandhi

AA.

Biomechanical analysis of the cervical spine following total disc arthroplasty: an experimental and finite element investigation. PhD Thesis, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 2012.

24.

Anderst

Donaldson

3rd Lee

et al . Cervical motion segment contributions to head motion during flexion\extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Spine J 2015; 15: 2538–2543.

25.

Panjabi

Crisco

Vasavada

et al . Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine 2001; 26(24): 2692–2700.

26.

Lin

C-C

T-W

Wang

T-M

et al . In vivo three-dimensional intervertebral kinematics of the subaxial cervical spine. J Biomech 2014; 47: 3310–3317.

27.

Anderst

Donaldson

3rd Lee

et al . Three-dimensional intervertebral kinematics in the healthy young adult cervical spine during dynamic functional loading. J Biomech 2015; 48: 1286–1293.

28.

Salvia

Champagne

Feipel

et al . Clinical and goniometric evaluation of patients with spasmodic torticollis. Clin Biomech 2006; 21: 323–329.

29.

Dvorak

Panjabi

Grob

et al . Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine 1993; 18(1): 120–127.

30.

Salem

Lenders

Mathieu

et al . In vivo three-dimensional kinematics of the cervical spine during maximal axial rotation. Man Ther 2013; 18: 339–344.

31.

Diao

Xin

Dong

et al . Prediction of cervical spinal joint loading and secondary motion using a musculoskeletal multibody dynamics model via force-dependent kinematics approach. Spine 2017; 42(24): E1403–E1409.

32.

Moroney

Schultz

Miller

JAA

et al . Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. J Biomech 1988; 21(9): 769–779.

33.

Yoganandan

Kumaresan

Pintar

FA.

Biomechanics of the cervical spine Part 2. Cervical spine soft tissue responses and biomechanical modeling. Clin Biomech 2001; 16: 1–27.

34.

Panjabi

Oxland

Parks

. Quantitative anatomy of cervical spine ligaments. Part II. Middle and lower cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 1991; 4(3): 277–285.

35.

Yoganandan

Kumaresan

Pintar

FA.

Geometric and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligaments. J Biomech Eng 2000; 122: 623–629.

36.

Panjabi

Duranceau

Goel

et al . Articular facets of the human spine. Spine 1992; 16(8): 861–869.

37.

Kumaresan

Yoganandan

Pintar

FA.

Finite element modeling approaches of human cervical spine facet joint capsule. J Biomech 1998; 31: 371–376.

38.

Rasmussen

Damsgaard

Voigt

Muscle recruitment by the min/max criterion—a comparative numerical study. J Biomech 2001; 34: 409–415.

39.

Andersen

Damsgaard

Rasmussen

. Force-dependent kinematics: a new analysis method for non-conforming joints. In: 13th international symposium on computer simulation in biomechanics, Leuven, 30 June–2 July 2011. KU Leuven, Belgium.

40.

Andersen

de Zee

Damsgaard

et al . Introduction to force-dependent kinematics: theory and application to mandible modeling. J Biomech Eng 2017; 139: 091001–091014.

41.

Liu

Guo

Yang

et al . Subaxial cervical intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following atlantoaxial fixation in different angles. World Neurosurg 2016; 87: 521–528.

42.

Auerbach

Anakwenze

Milby

et al . Segmental contribution toward total cervical range of motion: a comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion. Spine 2011; 36: E1593–E1599.

43.

Lan

H-CH

Chen

H-Y

Kuo

L-C

et al . The shift of segmental contribution ratio in patients with herniated disc during cervical lateral bending. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014; 15: 273.

44.

Bogduk

Mercer

Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal kinematics. Clin Biomech 2000; 15: 633–648.

45.

Anderst

Donaldson

Lee

et al . Subject-specific inverse dynamics of the head and cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension. J Biomech Eng 2013; 135: 61007–61008.

46.

Eck

Humphreys

Lim

et al . Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 2002; 27: 2431–2434.

47.

Mathys

Ferguson

SJ.

Simulation of the effects of different pilot helmets on neck loading during air combat. J Biomech 2012; 45: 2362–2367.

48.

Iatridis

ap Gwynn

Mechanisms for mechanical damage in the intervertebral disc annulus fibrosus. J Biomech 2004; 37: 1165–1175.

49.

Vicars

Hyde

Brown

et al . The effect of anterior-posterior shear load on the wear of ProDisc-L TDR. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 1356–1362.

50.

Dreischarf

Rohlmann

Zhu

et al . Is it possible to estimate the compressive force in the lumbar spine from intradiscal pressure measurements? A finite element evaluation. Med Eng Phys 2013; 35: 1385–1390.