Article

Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load. Spine

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL 60153, USA.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.45). 06/2000; 25(12):1548-54. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200006150-00015
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT An experimental approach was used to test human cadaveric cervical spine specimens.
To assess the response of the cervical spine to a compressive follower load applied along a path that approximates the tangent to the curve of the cervical spine.
The compressive load on the human cervical spine is estimated to range from 120 to 1200 N during activities of daily living. Ex vivo experiments show it buckles at approximately 10 N. Differences between the estimated in vivo loads and the ex vivo load-carrying capacity have not been satisfactorily explained.
A new experimental technique was developed for applying a compressive follower load of physiologic magnitudes up to 250 N. The experimental technique applied loads that minimized the internal shear forces and bending moments, loading the specimen in nearly pure compression.
A compressive vertical load applied in the neutral and forward-flexed postures caused large changes in cervical lordosis at small load magnitudes. The specimen collapsed in extension or flexion at a load of less than 40 N. In sharp contrast, the cervical spine supported a load of up to 250 N without damage or instability in both the sagittal and frontal planes when the load path was tangential to the spinal curve. The cervical spine was significantly less flexible under a compressive follower load compared with the hypermobility demonstrated under a compressive vertical load (P < 0.05).
The load-carrying capacity of the ligamentous cervical spine sharply increased under a compressive follower load. This experiment explains how a whole cervical spine can be lordotic and yet withstand the large compressive loads estimated in vivo without damage or instability.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Robert M Havey, Apr 28, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
164 Views
 · 
40 Downloads
  • Source
    • "Experimental studies have shown that, when a compressive force is applied along the spinal curvature (i.e., a follower load), the ligamentous cervical and lumbar spines can withstand compressive loads of up to 250 and 1200 N, respectively, without buckling while maintaining flexibility reasonably well [3] [4]. The authors of these studies postulated that the follower load corresponds to a physiological load on the spine in vivo; hence, it has been widely adopted in experimental and analytical studies. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The aim of this study was to determine whether side-lying hip abduction exercise while applying manual pelvic fixation is more effective than hip abduction without manual pelvic fixation for promoting deep trunk muscle activity. Design This is a cross-sectional study comparing deep trunk muscle activation between hip abduction exercise without and with manual pelvic fixation in ten participants. Muscle activation was measured using fine-wire and surface electromyography. Results Hip abduction with manual pelvic fixation was found to result in significantly more recruitment of all studied deep trunk muscles except the ipsilateral obliquus externus compared with hip abduction without manual pelvic fixation (P < 0.05). The greatest increased activation was seen in the ipsilateral deep and superficial multifidus. The increase in deep multifidus percentage of maximal voluntary contraction was greater than that of the rectus abdominis, the obliquus externus, the transversuus abdominis/obliquus internus, the lumbar erector spinae, the superficial multifidus, and the gluteus medius (P < 0.05). The superficial multifidus percentage of maximal voluntary contraction was significantly increased over that of the rectus abdominis and the obliquus externus (P < 0.05). Moderate correlation between deep and superficial multifidus activation was found (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.537). Conclusions Hip abduction training in the side-lying position while applying manual pelvic fixation seems to be more effective for recruiting deep trunk muscles for dynamic lumbar spinal stabilization.
    American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists 08/2014; 94(3). DOI:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000155 · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Experimental studies have shown that, when a compressive force is applied along the spinal curvature (i.e., a follower load), the ligamentous cervical and lumbar spines can withstand compressive loads of up to 250 and 1200 N, respectively, without buckling while maintaining flexibility reasonably well [3] [4]. The authors of these studies postulated that the follower load corresponds to a physiological load on the spine in vivo; hence, it has been widely adopted in experimental and analytical studies. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigated that the spinal MFs can create compressive follower loads (CFLs) in the lumbar spine in a dynamic state. Three-dimensional optimization and finite element (FE) models of the spinal system were developed and validated using reported experimental data. An optimization analysis was performed to determine the MFs that create CFLs in the lumbar spine in various sagittal postures from 10° extension to 40° flexion. Optimization solutions for the MFs, CFLs, and follower load path (FLP) location were feasible for all studied postures. The FE predictions demonstrated that MFs which created CFLs along the base spinal curve connecting the geometrical centers or along a curve in its vicinity (within anterior or posterior shift by 2 mm) produced stable deformation of the lumbar spine in the neutral standing and flexed postures, whereas the MFs which created the smallest CFLs resulted in unstable deformation. For extended postures, however, finding CFLs creating MFs that produce stable deformation of the extended spine was not possible. The results of this study support the hypothesis that the spinal muscles may stabilize the spine via the CFL mechanism.
    Bio-medical materials and engineering 01/2014; 24(6):2319-29. DOI:10.3233/BME-141045 · 0.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The primary limitation of in vitro studies of head-first impact is lack of realistic in vivo neck muscle forces. We partially addressed this limitation by applying a follower load [42] [44], which is a simplified phenomological model of neck musculature. The model could be improved by incorporating a greater number of simulated muscle forces that is more physiologically correct. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current understanding of the biomechanics of cervical spine injuries in head first impact is based on decades of epidemiology, mathematical models and on ex vivo experimental studies. Recent mathematical modeling suggests that muscle activation and muscle forces influence injury risk and mechanics in head first impact. It is also known that muscle forces are central to the overall physiologic stability of the cervical spine. Despite this knowledge, the vast majority of ex vivo head first impact models do not incorporate musculature. We hypothesize that the simulation of the stabilizing mechanisms of musculature during head first osteoligamentous cervical spine experiments will influence the resulting kinematics and injury mechanisms. Therefore, the objective of this study was to document differences in the kinematics, kinetics and injuries of ex-vivo osteoligamentous human cervical spine and surrogate head complexes that were instrumented with simulated musculature relative to specimens that were not instrumented with musculature. We simulated head first impact (3 m/s impact speed) using cervical spines and surrogate head specimens (n=12). Six spines were instrumented with a follower load to simulate in vivo compressive muscle forces, while six were not. The principal finding was that the axial coupling of the cervical column between the head and the base of the cervical spine (T1) was increased in specimens with follower load. Increased axial coupling was indicated by significantly reduced time between head impact and peak neck reaction force (p=0.004) (and time to injury (p=0.009)), in complexes with follower load relative to complexes without follower load. Kinematic reconstruction of vertebral motions indicated that all specimens experienced hyperextension and the spectrum of injuries in all specimens were consistent with a primary hyperextension injury mechanism. These preliminary results suggest that simulating follower load that may be similar to in vivo muscle forces results in significantly different impact kinetics than in many biomechanical tests where musculature is not simulated.
    Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 06/2013; 135(11). DOI:10.1115/1.4024822 · 1.75 Impact Factor
Show more