Sensitivity of musculoskeletal model-based lumbar spinal loading estimates to type of kinematic input and passive stiffness properties

[摘要] The study investigated the potential for obtaining more accurate spine joint reaction force (JRF) estimates from musculoskeletal models by incorporating dynamic stereo X-ray imaging (DSX)-based in vivo lumbar vertebral rotational and translational kinematics compared to generic, rhythm (RHY)-based kinematics, while also observing the influence of accompanying inputs: intervertebral segment stiffness and neutral state. A full-body OpenSim(R) musculoskeletal model, constructed by combining existing lower- and upper-body models, was driven based on one volunteer's (female; age 25; 60.8 kg; 176 cm) anthropometrics and kinematics from a series of upright standing and straight-legged dynamic lifting tasks. The lumbar spine portion was modified in a step-wise manner to observe effects of: (1) RHY vs. DSX lumbar kinematics; (2) No disc (bushing) stiffness (NBS); generic, linear bushing stiffness (LBS); subject-specific nonlinear bushing stiffness (NLBS); (3) Upright standing (UP) vs. Supine (SUP) neutral state; (4) Weight lifted: 4.5 kg vs. 13.6 kg. L4L5 JRF from 24 model variations based on combinations of aforementioned parameters were compared. Rhythm-based kinematics without translational components tends to over-predict JRF (31% and 39% for compression and shear, respectively) compared to DSX-based kinematics. Additionally, differences due to accompanying passive stiffness and neutral state choice combinations were even larger (>50%), indicating heightened demand on the quality of these accompanying inputs. The study not only highlights model sensitivity to choices made regarding the three primary inputs-kinematics, passive stiffness and neutral state-separately, but also how interactions between these choices can result in significant variability in joint loading estimates. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

[发布日期] 2020-03-26

[效力级别]  Proceedings Paper

[关键词] Lumbar spinal loading;Subject-specific kinematics;Passive stiffness;Neutral position;Rigid-body musculoskeletal modeling