On the relevance of surrogate parameter deduction in biomedical research: mediated regression analysis for variance explanation of cervical range of motion

Unilateral and bilateral training competitive archers differ in some potentially unhealthy neck-shoulder region movement behaviour characteristics

BACKGROUND

Excessive unilateral joint loads may lead to overuse disorders. Bilateral training in archery is only performed as a supportive coordination training and as a variation of typical exercise. However, a series of studies demonstrated a crossover transfer of training-induced motor skills to the contralateral side, especially in case of mainly unilateral skills. We compared the cervical spine and shoulder kinematics of unilateral and bilateral training archers.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 25 (5 females, 48 ± 14 years) bilaterally training and 50 age-, sex- and level-matched (1:2; 47.3 ± 13.9 years) unilaterally training competitive archers were included. Cervical range of motion (RoM, all planes) and glenohumeral rotation were assessed with an ultrasound-based 3D motion analysis system. Upward rotation of the scapula during abduction and elevation of the arm were measured by means of a digital inclinometer and active shoulder mobility by means of an electronic caliper. All outcomes were compared between groups (unilaterally vs. bilaterally) and sides (pull-hand- vs. bow-hand-side).

RESULTS

Unilateral and bilateral archers showed no between group and no side-to-side-differences in either of the movement direction of the cervical spine. The unilateral archers had higher pull-arm-side total glenohumeral rotation than the bilateral archers (mean, 95% CI), (148°, 144-152° vs. 140°, 135°-145°). In particular, internal rotation (61°, 58-65° vs. 56°, 51-61°) and more upward rotation of the scapula at 45 degrees (12°, 11-14° vs. 8°, 6-10°), 90 degrees (34°, 31-36° vs. 28°, 24-32°), 135 degrees (56°, 53-59° vs. 49°, 46-53°), and maximal (68°, 65-70° vs. 62°, 59-65°) arm abduction differed. The bow- and pull-arm of the unilateral, but not of the bilateral archers, differed in the active mobility of the shoulder (22 cm, 20-24 cm vs. 18 cm, 16-20 cm).

CONCLUSIONS

Unilaterally training archers display no unphysiologic movement behaviour of the cervical spine, but show distinct shoulder asymmetris in the bow- and pull-arm-side when compared to bilateral archers in glenohumeral rotation, scapula rotation during arm abduction, and active mobility of the shoulder. These asymmetries in may exceed physiological performance-enhancing degrees. Bilateral training may seems appropriate in archery to prevent asymmetries.

Prospective surgical solutions in degenerative spine: spinal simulation for optimal choice of implant and targeted device development

Objectives

The most important goal of surgical treatment for spinal degeneration, in addition to eliminating the underlying pathology, is to preserve the biomechanically relevant structures. If degeneration destroys biomechanics, the single segment must either be surgically stabilized or functionally replaced by prosthetic restoration. This study examines how software-based presurgical simulation affects device selection and device development.

Methods

Based on videofluoroscopic motion recordings and pixel-precise processing of the segmental motion patterns, a software-based surrogate functional model was validated. It characterizes the individual movement of spinal segments relative to corresponding cervical or lumbar spine sections. The single segment-based motion of cervical or lumbar spine of individual patients can be simulated, if size-calibrated functional X-rays of the relevant spine section are available. The software plug-in “biokinemetric triangle” has been then integrated into this software to perform comparative segmental motion analyses before and after treatment in two cervical device studies: the correlation of implant-induced changes in the movement geometry and patient-related outcome was examined to investigate, whether this surrogate model could provide a guideline for implant selection and future implant development.

Results

For its validation in 253 randomly selected patients requiring single-level cervical (n=122) or lumbar (n=131) implant-supported restoration, the biokinemetric triangle provided significant pattern recognition in comparable investigations (p<0.05) and the software detected device-specific changes after implant-treatment (p<0.01). Subsequently, 104 patients, who underwent cervical discectomy, showed a correlation of the neck disability index with implant-specific changes in their segmental movement geometry: the preoperative simulation supported the best choice of surgical implants, since the best outcome resulted from restricting the extent of the movement of adjacent segments influenced by the technical mechanism of the respective device (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The implant restoration resulted in best outcome which modified intersegmental communication in a way that the segments adjacent to the implanted segment undergo less change in their own movement geometry. Based on our software-surrogate, individualized devices could be created that slow down further degeneration of adjacent segments by influencing the intersegmental communication of the motion segments.

Effects of Preoperative Simulation on Minimally Invasive Hybrid Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

The main focus of this study was to evaluate how preoperative simulation affects the surgical work flow, radiation exposure, and outcome of minimally invasive hybrid lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-HLIF).

METHODS

A total of 132 patients who underwent single-level MIS-HLIF were enrolled in a cohort study design. Dose area product was analyzed in addition to surgical data. Once preoperative simulation was established, 66 cases (SIM cohort) were compared with 66 patients who had previously undergone MIS-HLIF without preoperative simulation (NO-SIM cohort).

RESULTS

Dose area product was reduced considerably in the SIM cohort (320 cGy·cm² NO-SIM cohort: 470 cGy·cm²; P < 0.01). Surgical time was shorter for the SIM cohort (155 minutes; NO-SIM cohort, 182 minutes; P < 0.05). SIM cohort had a better outcome in Numeric Rating Scale back at 6 months follow-up compared with the NO-SIM cohort (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative simulation reduced radiation exposure and resulted in less back pain at the 6 months follow-up time point. Preoperative simulation provided guidance in determining the correct cage height. Outcome controls enabled the surgeon to improve the procedure and the software algorithm.