Using static postures to estimate spinal loading during dynamic lifts with participant-specific thoracolumbar musculoskeletal models

An OpenSim thoracolumbar spine model applying a bottom-up modelling approach is similar to a top-down approach

The kinetic demands of the spine can be assessed using a top-down (TD) or bottom-up (BU) approach, which start calculations from the either the hands or from the feet, respectively. Biomechanists have traditionally favored a BU approach, though existing modeling approaches encourage a TD approach. Regardless of the approach the demands should be similar, provided the external forces and linked segment parameters are equivalently measured and modeled. Demonstrating a level of agreement between the two approaches can help evaluate a model. Further, having both approaches can be advantageous when data is inaccurate or unavailable for one. The purpose of this study was to compare the internal moments and forces at multiple lumbar and thoracic intervertebral joint (IVJ) levels during lifting tasks from an established OpenSim thoracolumbar spine model that applies a TD approach and a similar model modified to adopt a BU approach. Kinematics and external forces were recorded from twelve participants during sagittal and lateral lifts of different lifting speeds and crate masses. For both approaches IVJ kinetics were estimated using a standard OpenSim modeling pipeline. The BU and TD approach IVJ joint moments generally agreed both temporally (R2 = .94 ± .17) and in magnitude (RMSE=6.2 ± 3.5 Nm) of the primary planes of movement. There were however some temporal fit exceptions for off axes moments with low magnitudes (i.e., < 10 Nm). Bland-Altman plots also indicated acceptable agreement for IVJ peak forces (BU-TD difference of 12 ± 111 and 8 ± 31 N in compression and resultant shear, respectfully). These results support the application of the BU approach and the assigned linked segment parameters of the model. The new BU model is available on the SimTK site (https://simtk.org/projects/spine_ribcage).

Musculoskeletal spine modeling in large patient cohorts: how morphological individualization affects lumbar load estimation

Introduction: Achieving an adequate level of detail is a crucial part of any modeling process. Thus, oversimplification of complex systems can lead to overestimation, underestimation, and general bias of effects, while elaborate models run the risk of losing validity due to the uncontrolled interaction of multiple influencing factors and error propagation. Methods: We used a validated pipeline for the automated generation of multi-body models of the trunk to create 279 models based on CT data from 93 patients to investigate how different degrees of individualization affect the observed effects of different morphological characteristics on lumbar loads. Specifically, individual parameters related to spinal morphology (thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), and torso height (TH)), as well as torso weight (TW) and distribution, were fully or partly considered in the respective models according to their degree of individualization, and the effect strengths of these parameters on spinal loading were compared between semi- and highly individualized models. T-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (T-SNE) analysis was performed for overarching pattern recognition and multiple regression analyses to evaluate changes in occurring effects and significance. Results: We were able to identify significant effects (p < 0.05) of various morphological parameters on lumbar loads in models with different degrees of individualization. Torso weight and lumbar lordosis showed the strongest effects on compression (β ≈ 0.9) and anterior-posterior shear forces (β ≈ 0.7), respectively. We could further show that the effect strength of individual parameters tended to decrease if more individual characteristics were included in the models. Discussion: The induced variability due to model individualization could only partly be explained by simple morphological parameters. Our study shows that model simplification can lead to an emphasis on individual effects, which needs to be critically assessed with regard to in vivo complexity. At the same time, we demonstrated that individualized models representing a population-based cohort are still able to identify relevant influences on spinal loading while considering a variety of influencing factors and their interactions.

Effect of muscular fatigue on the cumulative lumbar damage during repetitive lifting task: a comparative study of damage calculation methods

Several methods have been put forward to quantify cumulative loads; however, limited evidence exists as to the subsequent damages and the role of muscular fatigue. The present study assessed whether muscular fatigue could affect cumulative damage imposed on the L5-S1 joint. Trunk muscle electromyographic (EMG) activities and kinematics/kinetics of 18 healthy male individuals were evaluated during a simulated repetitive lifting task. A traditional EMG-assisted model of the lumbar spine was modified to account for the effect of erector spinae fatigue. L5-S1 compressive loads for each lifting cycle were estimated based on varying (i.e. actual), fatigue-modified, and constant Gain factors. The corresponding damages were integrated to calculate the cumulative damage. Moreover, the damage calculated for one lifting cycle was multiplied by the lifting frequency, as the traditional approach. Compressive loads and the damages obtained through the fatigue-modified model were predicted in close agreement with the actual values. Similarly, the difference between actual damages and those driven by the traditional approach was not statistically significant (p = 0.219). However, damages based on a constant Gain factor were significantly greater than those based on the actual (p = 0.012), fatigue-modified (p = 0.017), and traditional (p = 0.007) approaches.Practitioner summary: In this study, we managed to include the effect of muscular fatigue on cumulative lumbar damage calculations. Including the effect of muscular fatigue leads to an accurate estimation of cumulative damages while eliminating computational complexity. However, using the traditional approach also appears to provide acceptable estimates for ergonomic assessments.

Evaluation of ground reaction forces and centers of pressure predicted by AnyBody Modeling System during load reaching/handling activities and effects of the prediction errors on model-estimated spinal loads

Full-body and lower-extremity human musculoskeletal models require feet ground reaction forces (GRFs) and centers of pressure (CoPs) as inputs to predict muscle forces and joint loads. GRFs/CoPs are traditionally measured via floor-mounted forceplates that are usually restricted to research laboratories thus limiting their applicability in real occupational and clinical setups. Alternatively, GRFs/CoPs can be estimated via inverse dynamic approaches as also implemented in the Anybody Modeling System (AnyBody Technology, Aalborg, Denmark). The accuracy of Anybody in estimating GRFs/CoPs during load-handling/reaching activities and the effect of its prediction errors on model-estimated spinal loads remain to be investigated. Twelve normal- and over-weight individuals performed total of 480 static load-handling/reaching activities while measuring (by forceplates) and predicting (by AnyBody) their GRFs/CoPs. Moreover, the effects of GRF/CoP prediction errors on the estimated spinal loads were evaluated by inputting measured or predicted GRFs/CoPs into subject-specific musculoskeletal models. Regardless of the subject groups (normal-weight or overweight) and tasks (load-reaching or load-handling), results indicated great agreements between the measured and predicted GRFs (normalized root-mean-squared error, nRMSEs < 14% and R2 > 0.90) and between their model-estimated spinal loads (nRMSEs < 14% and R2 > 0.83). These agreements were good but relatively less satisfactory for CoPs (nRMSEs < 17% and 0.57 < R2 < 0.68). The only exception, requiring a more throughout investigation, was the situation when the ground-foot contact was significantly reduced during the activity. It appears that occupational/clinical investigations performed in real workstation/clinical setups with no access to forceplates may benefit from the AnyBody GRF/CoP prediction tools for a wide range of load-reaching/handling activities.

An Enhanced Spine Model Validated for Simulating Dynamic Lifting Tasks in OpenSim

A fully articulated thoracolumbar spine model had been previously developed in OpenSim and had been extensively validated against experimental data during various static tasks. In the present study, we enhanced this detailed musculoskeletal model by adding the role of passive structures and adding kinematic constraints to make it suitable for dynamic tasks. We validated the spinal forces estimated by this enhanced model during nine dynamic lifting/lowering tasks. Moreover, we recently developed and evaluated five approaches in OpenSim to model the external loads applied to the hands during lifting/lowering tasks, and in the present study, we assessed which approach results in more accurate spinal forces. Regardless of the external load modeling approach, the maximum forces predicted by our enhanced spine model across all tasks, as well as the pattern of estimated spinal forces within each task, showed strong correlations (r-values and cross-correlation coefficients > 0.9) with experimental data. Given the biofidelity of our enhanced model, its accessibility via the open-source OpenSim software, and the extent to which this model has been validated, we recommend it for applications requiring estimation of spinal forces during lifting/lowering tasks using multibody-based models and inverse dynamic analyses.

Using inertial measurement units to estimate spine joint kinematics and kinetics during walking and running

Optical motion capture (OMC) is considered the best available method for measuring spine kinematics, yet inertial measurement units (IMU) have the potential to collect data outside the laboratory. When combined with musculoskeletal modeling, IMU technology may be used to estimate spinal loads in real-world settings. To date, IMUs have not been validated for estimates of spinal movement and loading during both walking and running. Using OpenSim Thoracolumbar Spine and Ribcage models, we compare IMU and OMC estimates of lumbosacral (L5/S1) and thoracolumbar (T12/L1) joint angles, moments, and reaction forces during gait across six speeds for five participants. For comparisons, time series are ensemble averaged over strides. Comparisons between IMU and OMC ensemble averages have low normalized root mean squared errors (< 0.3 for 81% of comparisons) and high, positive cross-correlations (> 0.5 for 91% of comparisons), suggesting signals are similar in magnitude and trend. As expected, joint moments and reaction forces are higher during running than walking for IMU and OMC. Relative to OMC, IMU overestimates joint moments and underestimates joint reaction forces by 20.9% and 15.7%, respectively. The results suggest using a combination of IMU technology and musculoskeletal modeling is a valid means for estimating spinal movement and loading.

Validity of evaluating spinal kinetics without participant-specific kinematics

Musculoskeletal models are commonly used to estimate in vivo spinal loads under various loading conditions. Typically, participant-specific measured kinematics (PSMK) are coupled with participant-specific models, but obtaining PSMK data can be costly and infeasible in large studies or clinical practice. Thus, we evaluated two alternative methods to estimate spinal loads without PSMK: 1) ensemble average kinematics (EAK) based on kinematics from all participants; and 2) using separately measured individual kinematics (SMIK) from multiple other participants as inputs, then averaging the resulting loads. This study compares the dynamic spine loading patterns and peak loads in older adults performing five lifting tasks using PSMK, EAK and SMIK. Median root mean square errors of EAK and SMIK methods versus PSMK ranged from 18 to 72% body weight for compressive loads and from 2 to 25% body weight for shear loads, with median cross-correlations ranging from 0.931 to 0.991. The root mean square errors and cross-correlations between repeated PSMK trials fell within similar ranges. Compressive peak loads evaluated by EAK and SMIK were not different than PSMK in 12 of 15 cases, while by comparison repeated PSMK trials were not different in 13 of 15 cases. Overall, the resulting spine loading magnitudes and profiles using EAK or SMIK were not notably different than using a PSMK approach, and differences were not greater than between two PSMK trials. Thus, these findings indicate that these approaches may be used to make reasonable estimates of dynamic spinal loading without direct measurement of participant kinematics.

Biomechanical Load of Neck and Lumbar Joints in Open-Surgery Training

The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms (MSS) like neck and back pain is high among open-surgery surgeons. Prolonged working in the same posture and unfavourable postures are biomechanical risk factors for developing MSS. Ergonomic devices such as exoskeletons are possible solutions that can reduce muscle and joint load. To design effective exoskeletons for surgeons, one needs to quantify which neck and trunk postures are seen and how much support during actual surgery is required. Hence, this study aimed to establish the biomechanical profile of neck and trunk postures and neck and lumbar joint loads during open surgery (training). Eight surgical trainees volunteered to participate in this research. Neck and trunk segment orientations were recorded using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) system during open surgery (training). Neck and lumbar joint kinematics, joint moments and compression forces were computed using OpenSim modelling software and a musculoskeletal model. Histograms were used to illustrate the joint angle and load distribution of the neck and lumbar joints over time. During open surgery, the neck flexion angle was 71.6% of the total duration in the range of 10~40 degrees, and lumbar flexion was 68.9% of the duration in the range of 10~30 degrees. The normalized neck and lumbar flexion moments were 53.8% and 35.5% of the time in the range of 0.04~0.06 Nm/kg and 0.4~0.6 Nm/kg, respectively. Furthermore, the neck and lumbar compression forces were 32.9% and 38.2% of the time in the range of 2.0~2.5 N/kg and 15~20 N/kg, respectively. In contrast to exoskeletons used for heavy lifting tasks, exoskeletons designed for surgeons exhibit lower support torque requirements while additional degrees of freedom (DOF) are needed to accommodate combinations of neck and trunk postures.

Multibody Models of the Thoracolumbar Spine: A Review on Applications, Limitations, and Challenges

Numerical models of the musculoskeletal system as investigative tools are an integral part of biomechanical and clinical research. While finite element modeling is primarily suitable for the examination of deformation states and internal stresses in flexible bodies, multibody modeling is based on the assumption of rigid bodies, that are connected via joints and flexible elements. This simplification allows the consideration of biomechanical systems from a holistic perspective and thus takes into account multiple influencing factors of mechanical loads. Being the source of major health issues worldwide, the human spine is subject to a variety of studies using these models to investigate and understand healthy and pathological biomechanics of the upper body. In this review, we summarize the current state-of-the-art literature on multibody models of the thoracolumbar spine and identify limitations and challenges related to current modeling approaches.