Objective: To develop a simple method for dynamically assessing lumbar motion segment angles that accounts for individual variability and remains inexpensive to apply. Background: Current biomechanical models do not dynamically assess motion segment angles. This results in inaccurate separation of overall spinal load into shear and compression. Methods: Twenty-nine males performed sagittally symmetric exertions. Anthropometry and sensor data were input into a geometric model to compute L5/S1 through T12/L1 motion segments angles. Linear regression equations were developed using anthropometry and trunk angle. These equations were applied to an independent set of four subjects with known angles. The trunk angle used here was compared to a commonly used trunk angle measure for widespread usability. Results: The L5/S1 through L2/L3 models are predictive of motion segment angles. Conclusions: Motion segment models developed here require simple, inexpensive measurements of torso angle and anthropometry. They are easy to use and applicable in clinical, research and industrial situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnderssonG. B. (1999). Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet, 354(9178), 581–585.
2.
BernhardtM.BridwellK. H. (1989). Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine, 14(7), 717–721.
3.
BryantJ. T.ReidJ. G.SmithB. L.StevensonJ. M. (1989). Method for determining vertebral body positions in the sagittal plane using skin markers. Spine, 14(3), 258.
4.
Campbell-KyureghyanN.JorgensenM.BurrD.MarrasW. (2005). The prediction of lumbar spine geometry: Method development and validation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 20(5), 455–464.
5.
ChaffinD. B.ParkK. S. (1973). A longitudinal study of low-back pain as associated with occupational weight lifting factors. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 34(12), 513.
6.
ChaffinD. B.SchutzR. K.SnyderR. G. (1972). A prediction model of human volitional mobility (No. 72002): SAE Technical Paper.
7.
ChenY. L. (1999). Geometric measurements of the lumbar spine in Chinese men during trunk flexion. Spine, 24(7), 666.
8.
GelbD. E.LenkeL. G.BridwellK. H.BlankeK.McEneryK. W. (1995). An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 100 asymptomatic middle and older aged volunteers. Spine, 20(12), 1351.
9.
GracovetskyS.NewmanN.PawlowskyM.LanzoV.DaveyB.RobinsonL. (1995). A database for estimating normal spinal motion derived from noninvasive measurements. Spine, 20(9), 1036.
10.
JacksonR. P.PetersonM. D.McManusA. C.HalesC. (1998). Compensatory spinopelvic balance over the hip axis and better reliability in measuring lordosis to the pelvic radius on standing lateral radiographs of adult volunteers and patients. Spine, 23(16), 1750.
11.
JorgensenM. J. (2001). Changes in erector spinae moment arms at L5/S1 during trunk flexion. The Ohio State University.
12.
MarrasW. S.FergusonS. A.GuptaP.BoseS.ParnianpourM.KimJ. Y.CrowellR. R. (1999). The quantification of low back disorder using motion measures. Methodology and validation. Spine, 24(20), 2091.
13.
MarrasW. S.GranataK. P. (1997). The Development of an EMG-Assisted Model to Assess Spine Loading During Whole-Body Free-Dynamic Lifting. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 7(4), 259.
14.
MarrasW. S.LavenderS. A.LeurgansS. E.FathallahF. A.FergusonS. A.AllreadW. G.RajuluS. L. (1995). Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders. Ergonomics, 38(2), 377.
15.
McGillS. M.NormanR. W. (1986). Partitioning of the L4–L5 dynamic moment into disc, ligamentous, and muscular components during lifting. Spine, 11(7), 666.
16.
NormanR.WellsR.NeumannP.FrankJ.ShannonH.KerrM., Ontario Universities Back Pain Study Group (1998). A comparison of peak vs cumulative physical work exposure risk factors for the reporting of low back pain in the automotive industry. Clinical Biomechanics(13), 561.
17.
SicardC.GagnonM. (1993). A geometric model of the lumbar spine in the sagittal plane. Spine, 18(5), 646.
18.
SplittstoesserR. E. (2001). A simple method for predicting dynamic lumbar motion segment angles using measures of trunk angle and subject anthropometry (Thesis): The Ohio State University.
19.
SplittstoesserR. E.DavisK. G.MarrasW. S. (2000). Trade-Offs between trunk flexion, hip flexion, and knee angle in lifting below waist level. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44, 5–9.
20.
StagnaraP.De MauroyJ. C.DranG.GononG. P.CostanzoG.DimnetJ.PasquetA. (1982). Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in a sagittal plane: Approach to references for the evaluation of kyphosis and lordosis. Spine, 7(4), 335.
21.
TorellG.NachemsonA.Haderspeck-GribK.SchultzA. (1985). Standing and supine Cobb measures in girls with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine, 10(5), 425–427.
22.
VedantamR.LenkeL. G.BridwellK. H.LinvilleD. L. (2000). Comparison of push-prone and lateral-bending radiographs for predicting postoperative coronal alignment in thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliotic curves. Spine, 25(1), 76.
23.
VedantamR.LenkeL. G.KeeneyJ. A.BridwellK. H. (1998). Comparison of standing sagittal spinal alignment in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Spine, 23(2), 211.
24.
WilliamsF. (1992). Reasoning with statistics. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth.
25.
YaziciM.AcarogluE. R.AlanayA.DevirenV.CilaA.SuratA. (2001). Measurement of vertebral rotation in standing versus supine position in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop, 21(2), 252–256.
26.
ZhangX.LeeS.BraidoP. (2004). Towards an integrated high-fidelity linkage representation of the human skeletal system based on surface measurement. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 33, 215–227.
