European Spine Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 12, pp 1785–1795 | Cite as

The effect of osteoporotic vertebral fracture on predicted spinal loads in vivo

  • Andrew M. Briggs
  • Tim V. Wrigley
  • Jaap H. van Dieën
  • Bev Phillips
  • Sing Kai Lo
  • Alison M. Greig
  • Kim L. Bennell
Original Article

Abstract

The aetiology of osteoporotic vertebral fractures is multi-factorial, and cannot be explained solely by low bone mass. After sustaining an initial vertebral fracture, the risk of subsequent fracture increases greatly. Examination of physiologic loads imposed on vertebral bodies may help to explain a mechanism underlying this fracture cascade. This study tested the hypothesis that model-derived segmental vertebral loading is greater in individuals who have sustained an osteoporotic vertebral fracture compared to those with osteoporosis and no history of fracture. Flexion moments, and compression and shear loads were calculated from T2 to L5 in 12 participants with fractures (66.4 ± 6.4 years, 162.2 ± 5.1 cm, 69.1 ± 11.2 kg) and 19 without fractures (62.9 ± 7.9 years, 158.3 ± 4.4 cm, 59.3 ± 8.9 kg) while standing. Static analysis was used to solve gravitational loads while muscle-derived forces were calculated using a detailed trunk muscle model driven by optimization with a cost function set to minimise muscle fatigue. Least squares regression was used to derive polynomial functions to describe normalised load profiles. Regression co-efficients were compared between groups to examine differences in loading profiles. Loading at the fractured level, and at one level above and below, were also compared between groups. The fracture group had significantly greater normalised compression (= 0.0008) and shear force (< 0.0001) profiles and a trend for a greater flexion moment profile. At the level of fracture, a significantly greater flexion moment (= 0.001) and shear force (< 0.001) was observed in the fracture group. A greater flexion moment (= 0.003) and compression force (= 0.007) one level below the fracture, and a greater flexion moment (= 0.002) and shear force (= 0.002) one level above the fracture was observed in the fracture group. The differences observed in multi-level spinal loading between the groups may explain a mechanism for increased risk of subsequent vertebral fractures. Interventions aimed at restoring vertebral morphology or reduce thoracic curvature may assist in normalising spine load profiles.

Keywords

Osteoporosis Vertebral fracture Spine loading Biomechanics Optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Associate Professor David Pearsall (McGill University, Canada) with providing additional trunk inertial data and the Medical Imaging department at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding: seeding grant 013/05: Physiotherapy Research Foundation (Australia).

References

  1. 1.
    Aaron JE, Shore PA, Shore RC et al (2000) Trabecular architecture in women and men of similar bone mass with and without vertebral fracture II. Three-dimensional histology. Bone 27:277–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexeeva L, Burckhardt P, Christiansen C et al (1994) Report of a World Health Organization study group. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black DM, Arden NK, Palermo L et al (1999) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict hip fractures and new vertebral deformities but not wrist fractures. Study of osteoporotic fractures research group. J Bone Miner Res 14:821–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs A, Wark J, Phillips B et al (2005) Subregional bone mineral density characteristics in the lumbar spine: an in vivo pilot study using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Annual scientific meeting of the Australian and New Zealand bone and mineral society, Perth, Australia, 7–9 September 2005Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briggs AM, Greig AM, Wark JD et al (2004) A review of anatomical and mechanical factors affecting vertebral body integrity. Int J Med Sci 1:170–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Briggs AM, Tully EA, Adams PE et al (2005) Vertebral centroid and Cobb angle measures of thoracic kyphosis. Intern Med J 35:A96Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Briggs AM, Wark JD, Kantor S et al (2006) Bone mineral density distribution in thoracic and lumbar vertebrae: an ex vivo study using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Bone 38:286–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bürklein D, Lochmuller EM, Kuhn V et al (2001) Correlation of thoracic and lumbar vertebral failure loads with in situ vs. ex situ dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Biomech 34:579–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crowninshield RD, Brand RA (1981) A physiologically based criterion of muscle force prediction in locomotion. J Biomech 14:793–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dieën JHv (1997) Are recruitment patterns of the trunk musculature compatible with a synergy based on maximization of endurance? J Biomech 30:1095–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dieën JHv, Kingma I (2005) Effects of antagonistic co-contraction on differences between electromyography based and optimization based estimates of spinal forces. Ergonomics 48:411–426Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dublin AB, Hartman J, Latchaw RE et al (2005) The vertebral body fracture in osteoporosis: restoration of height using percutaneous vertebroplasty. Am J Neuroradiol 26:489–492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duval-Beaupere G, Robain G (1987) Visualization of full spine radiographs of the anatomical connections of the centres of the segmental body mass supported by each vertebra and measured in vivo. Int Orthop 11:261–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ebbesen EN, Thomsen JS, Beck-Nielsen H et al (1999) Lumbar vertebral body compressive strength evaluated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography, and ashing. Bone 25:713–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eckstein F, Fischbeck M, Kuhn V et al (2004) Determinants and heterogeneity of mechanical competence throughout the thoracolumbar spine of elderly women and men. Bone 35:364–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edmondston SJ, Singer KP, Day RE et al (1994) In-vitro relationships between vertebral body density, size, and compressive strength in the elderly thoracolumbar spine. Clin Biomech 9:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Edmondston SJ, Singer KP, Day RE et al (1997) Ex vivo estimation of thoracolumbar vertebral body compressive strength: the relative contributions of bone densitometry and vertebral morphometry. Osteoporos Int 7:142–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-Rich M, Shirazi-Adl A, Arjmand N (2004) Muscle activity, internal loads, and stability of the human spine in standing postures: combined model and in vivo studies. Spine 29:2633–2642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farooq N, Park JC, Pollintine P et al (2005) Can vertebroplasty restore normal load-bearing to fractured vertebrae? Spine 30:1723–1730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Felsenberg D, Boonen S (2005) The bone quality framework: determinants of bone strength and their interrelationships, and implications for osteoporosis management. Clin Ther 27:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ford CM, Keaveny TM (1996) The dependence of shear failure properties of trabecular bone on apparent density and trabecular orientation. J Biomech 29:1309–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gardner-Morse MG, Laible JP, Stokes IAF (1990) Incorporation of spinal flexibility measurements into finite element analysis. J Biomech Eng 112:481–483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Genant HK, Jergas M (2003) Assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis research. Osteoporos Int 14:S43–S55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gilsanz V, Loro LM, Roe TF et al (1995) Vertebral size in elderly women with osteoporosis: mechanical implications and relationships to fractures. J Clin Invest 95:2332–2337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goh S, Price RI, Leedman PJ et al (2000) A comparison of three methods for measuring thoracic kyphosis: implications for clinical studies. Rheumatology 39:310–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hansson T, Roos B, Nachemson A (1980) The bone mineral content and ultimate compressive strength of lumbar vertebrae. Spine 5:46–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Harrison DD et al (2001) Reliability of centroid, Cobb, and Harrison posterior tangent methods: which to choose for analysis of thoracic kyphosis. Spine 26:E227–E234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC, Meeger C et al (1989) Change in vertebral shape in spinal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 44:168–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Homminga J, Van-Rietbergen B, Lochmuller EM et al (2004) The osteoporotic vertebral structure is well adapted to the loads of daily life, but not to infrequent error loads. Bone 34:510–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huang MH, Barrett-Connor E, Greendale GA et al (2006) Hyperkyphotic posture and risk of future osteoporotic fractures: the Rancho Bernado study. J Bone Miner Res 21:419–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jensen RK, Fletcher P (1994) Distribution of mass to the segments of elderly males and females. J Biomech 27:89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kanis JA (2002) Assessing the risk of vertebral osteoporosis. Singapore Med J 43:100–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keaveny TM, Morgan EF, Niebur GL et al (2001) Biomechanics of trabecular bone. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 3:307–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keller TS, Harrison DE, Colloca CJ et al (2003) Prediction of osteoporotic spinal deformity. Spine 28:455–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keller TS, Holm SH, Hansson TH et al (1990) The dependence of intervertebral disc mechanical properties on physiologic conditions. Spine 15:751–761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB et al (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15:721–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kopperdahl DL, Pearlman JL, Keaveny TM (2000) Biomechanical consequences of an isolated overload on the human vertebral body. J Orthop Res 18:685–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C et al (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285:320–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCloskey EV, Spector TD, Eyres KS et al (1993) The assessment of vertebral deformity: a method for use in population studies and clinical trials. Osteoporos Int 3:138–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Motulsky H, Christopoulos A (2003) Fitting models to biological data using linear and non-linear regression: a practical guide to curve fitting. GraphPad Software Inc., San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oleksik A, Ott SM, Vedi S et al (2000) Bone structure in patients with low bone mineral density with or without vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 15:1368–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pearsall DJ, Reid JG, Livingston LA (1996) Segmental inertial parameters of the human trunk as determined from computed tomography. Ann Biomed Eng 24:198–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Graichen F (1999) Loads on internal spinal fixators measured in different body positions. Eur Spine J 8:354–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS et al (1991) Pre-existing fractures and bone mass predict vertebral fracture incidence in women. Ann Intern Med 114:919–923PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ross PD, Genant HK, Davis JW et al (1993) Predicting vertebral fracture incidence from prevalent fractures and bone density among non-black, osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 3:120–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Simpson EK, Parkinson IH, Manthey B et al (2001) Intervertebral disc disorganisation is related to trabecular bone architecture in the lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res 16:681–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singer K, Edmondston S, Day R et al (1995) Prediction of thoracic and lumbar vertebral body compressive strength. Correlations with bone mineral density and vertebral region. Bone 17:167–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stokes IAF, Gardner-Morse M (1999) Quantitative anatomy of the lumbar musculature. J Biomech 32:311–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Winter DA (1990) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew M. Briggs
    • 1
    • 3
  • Tim V. Wrigley
    • 1
  • Jaap H. van Dieën
    • 4
  • Bev Phillips
    • 2
  • Sing Kai Lo
    • 5
  • Alison M. Greig
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kim L. Bennell
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, School of PhysiotherapyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Rehabilitation Sciences Research Centre, School of PhysiotherapyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne HospitalUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Institute for Fundamental and Clinical Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Human Movement SciencesVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Faculty of Health and Behavioural SciencesDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations