The Biomechanical Effects of Variation in the Maximum Forces Exerted by Trunk Muscles on the Joint Forces and Moments in the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2010
The Biomechanical Effects of Variation in the Maximum Forces Exerted by Trunk Muscles on the Joint Forces and Moments in the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis
The weakening of trunk muscles is known to be related to a reduction of the stabilization function provided by the muscles to the lumbar spine; therefore, strengthening deep muscles might reduce the possibility of injury and pain in the lumbar spine. In this study, the effect of variation in maximum forces of trunk muscles on the joint forces and moments in the lumbar spine was investigated. Accordingly, a three-dimensional finite element model of the lumbar spine that included the trunk muscles was used in this study. The variation in maximum forces of specific muscle groups was then modelled, and joint compressive and shear forces, as well as resultant joint moments, which were presumed to be related to spinal stabilization from a mechanical viewpoint, were analysed. The increase in resultant joint moments occurred owing to decrease in maximum forces of the multifidus, interspinales, intertransversarii, rotatores, iliocostalis, longissimus, psoas, and quadratus lumborum. In addition, joint shear forces and resultant joint moments were reduced as the maximum forces of deep muscles were increased. These results from finite element analysis indicate that the variation in maximum forces exerted by trunk muscles could affect the joint forces and joint moments in the lumbar spine.
WhiteA.A.IIIPanjabiM.M.Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edition, 1990 (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).
2.
CholewickiJ.McGillS.M.Mechanical stability of the in vivo lumbar spine: Implications for injury and chronic low back pain. Clin. Biomech., 1996, 11,1–15.
3.
SolomonowM.ZhouB.H.HarrisM.LuY.BarattaR.V.The ligamento-muscular stabilizing system of the spine. Spine, 1998, 23, 2552–2562.
BarrK.P.GriggsM.CadbyT.Lumbar stabilization: A review of core concepts and current literature, Part 1. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 2005, 84, 473–480.
6.
BarrK.P.GriggsM.CadbyT.Lumbar stabilization: A review of core concepts and current literature, Part 2. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 2007, 86, 72–80.
7.
DanneelsL.A.VanderstraetenG.G.CambierD.C.WitvrouwE.E.De CuyperH.J.CT imaging of trunk muscles in chronic low back pain patients and healthy control subjects. Eur. Spine J., 2000, 9, 266–272.
8.
KamazM.KireşiD.OğuzH.EmlikD.LevendoğluF.CT measurement of trunk muscle areas in patients with chronic low back pain. Diagn. Interv. Radiol., 2007, 13, 144–148.
9.
HidesJ.GilmoreC.StantonW.BohlscheidE.Multifidus size and symmetry among chronic LBP and healthy asymptomatic subjects. Man. Ther., 2008, 13, 43–49.
10.
GibbonsL.E.VidemanT.ManninenH.BattieM.C.Isokinetic and psychophysical lifting strength, static back muscle endurance, and magnetic resonance imaging of the paraspinal muscles as predictors of low pain in men. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med., 1997, 29, 187–191.
11.
PeltonenJ.E.TaimelaS.ErkintaloM.SalminenJ.J.OksananA.KujalaU.M.Back extensor and psoas muscle cross-sectional area, prior physical training, and trunk muscle strength: A longitudinal study in adolescent girls. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol., 1998, 77, 66–71.
12.
BarkerK.L.ShamleyD.R.JacksonD.Changes in the cross-sectional area of multifidus and psoas in patients with unilateral back pain. Spine, 2004, 29, 515–519.
13.
HidesJ.A.StokesM.J.SaideM.JullG.A.CooperD.H.Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. Spine, 1994, 19, 165–172.
14.
HidesJ.RichardsonC.JullG.Multifidus recovery is not automatic following resolution of acute first episode of low back pain. Spine, 1996, 21, 2763–2769.
15.
CriscoJ.J.PanjabiM.M.The intersegmental and multisegmental muscles of the lumbar spine. A biomechanical model comparing lateral stabilizing potential. Spine, 1991, 16, 793–799.
ParkT.A.HarrisG.F.‘Guided’ intramuscular fine wire electrode placement. A new technique. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 1996, 75, 232–234.
18.
FerreiraP.H.FerreiraM.L.HodgesP.W.Changes in recruitment of the abdominal muscles in people with low back pain: Ultrasound measurement of muscle activity. Spine, 2004, 29, 2560–2566.
19.
StokesI.A.Gardner-MorseM.Lumbar spine maximum efforts and muscle recruitment patterns predicted by a model with multijoint muscles and joints with stiffness. J. Biomech., 1995, 28, 173–186.
20.
Shirazi-AdlA.El-RichM.PopD.G.ParnianpourM.Spinal muscle forces, internal loads and stability in stand ing under various postures and loads - application of kinematics-based algorithm. Eur. Spine J., 2005, 14, 381–392.
21.
KimK.KimY.H.LeeS-K.Increase of load-carrying capacity under follower load generated by trunk muscles in lumbar spine. Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2007, 221(H3), 229–235. DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM229.
22.
KimK.KimY.H.Role of trunk muscles in generating follower load in the lumbar spine of neutral stand ing posture. J. Biomech. Eng., 2008, 130, 041005.
23.
StokesI.A.Gardner-MorseM.Quantitative anatomy of the lumbar musculature. J. Biomech., 1999, 32, 311–316.
ParkJ.S.ChungM.S.HwangS.B.ShinB.S.ParkH.S.Visible Korean Human: Its techniques and applications. Clin. Anat., 2006, 19, 216–224.
26.
HansenL.de ZeeM.RasmussenJ.AndersenT.B.WongC.SimonsenE.B.Anatomy and biomechanics of the back muscles in the lumbar spine with reference to biomechanical modeling. Spine, 2006, 31, 1888–1899.
27.
ParkkolaR.KujalaU.RytökoskiU.Response of the trunk muscles to training assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and muscle strength. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol., 1992, 65, 383–387.
28.
StokesI.A.F.Gardner-MorseM.G.Lumbar spinal muscle activation synergies predicted by multi-criteria cost function. J. Biomech., 2001, 34, 733–740.
29.
YílmazF.YílmazA.MerdolF.ParlarD.SahinF.KuranB.Efficacy of dynamic lumbar stabilization exercise in lumbar microdiscectomy. J. Rehabil. Med., 2003, 35, 163–167.
30.
LaasonenE.M.Atrophy of sacrospinal muscle groups in patients with chronic, diffusely radiating lumbar back pain. Neuroradiology, 1984, 26, 9–13.
31.
RantanenJ.HurmeM.FalckB.AlarantaH.NykvistF.LehtoM.EinolaS.KalimoH.The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine, 1993, 18, 568–574.
32.
KuukkanenT.M.MälkiäE.A.An experimental controlled study on postural sway and therapeutic exercise in subjects with low back pain. Clin. Rehabil., 2000, 14, 192–202.
33.
SjölieA.N.LjunggrenA.E.The significance of high lumbar mobility and low lumbar strength for current and future low back pain in adolescents. Spine, 2001, 26, 2629–2636.
34.
O'SullivanP.B.PhytyG.D.TwomeyL.T.AllisonG.T.Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. Spine, 1997, 22, 2959–2967.
35.
HidesJ.A.JullG.A.RichardsonC.A.Long-term effects of specific stabilizing exercises for first-episode low back pain. Spine, 2001, 26, E243–E248.
36.
KoumantakisG.A.WatsonP.J.OldhamJ. A.Trunk muscle stabilization training plus general exercise versus general exercise only: Rand omized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back pain. Phys. Ther., 2005, 85, 209–225.
37.
WilkeH.J.NeefP.CaimiM.HooglandT.ClaesL.E.New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine, 1999, 24, 755–762.
38.
ArjmandN.Shirazi-AdlA.Model and in vivo studies on human trunk load partitioning and stability in isometric forward flexions. J. Biomech., 2006, 39, 510–521.
LuW.W.LukK.D.HolmesA.D.CheungK. M.LeongJ.C.Pure shear properties of lumbar spinal joints and the effect of tissue sectioning on load sharing. Spine, 2005, 30, E204–E209.
