Quantitative data on the range of in vivo vertebral motion is critical to enhance our understanding of spinal pathology and to improve the current surgical treatment methods for spinal diseases. Little data have been reported on the range of lumbar vertebral motion during functional body activities. In this study, we measured in vivo 6 degrees-of-freedom (DOF) vertebral motion during unrestricted weightbearing functional body activities using a combined MR and dual fluoroscopic imaging technique. Eight asymptomatic living subjects were recruited and underwent MRI scans in order to create 3D vertebral models from L2 to L5 for each subject. The lumbar spine was then imaged using two fluoroscopes while the subject performed primary flexion-extension, left-right bending, and left-right twisting. The range of vertebral motion during each activity was determined through a previously described imaging-model matching technique at L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5 levels. Our data revealed that the upper vertebrae had a higher range of flexion than the lower vertebrae during flexion-extension of the body (L2-3, 5.4 ± 3.8°; L3-4, 4.3 ± 3.4°; L4-5, 1.9 ± 1.1°, respectively). During bending activity, the L4-5 had a higher (but not significant) range of left-right bending motion (4.7 ± 2.4°) than both L2-3 (2.9 ± 2.4°) and L3-4 (3.4 ± 2.1°), while no statistical difference was observed in left-right twisting among the three vertebral levels (L2-3, 2.5 ± 2.3°; L3-4, 2.4 ± 2.6°; and L4-5, 2.9 ± 2.1°, respectively). Besides the primary rotations reported, coupled motions were quantified in all DOFs. The coupled translation in left-right and anterior-posterior directions, on average, reached greater than 1 mm, while in the proximal-distal direction this was less than 1 mm. Overall, each vertebral level responds differently to flexion-extension and left-right bending, but similarly to the left-right twisting. This data may provide new insight into the in vivo function of human spines and can be used as baseline data for investigation of pathological spine kinematics.
In vivo spine motion Vertebral kinematics Spine biomechanics Lumbar spine Dual fluoroscopes
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The financial support from a NASS research grant and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery of Massachusetts General Hospital was greatly appreciated. This research was also supported by the Orthopaedic Department at Tianjin Orthopaedic Hospital. We also thank Drs. Brian Grottkau and Michael Kozanek for technical assistance.
Bingham J, Li G (2006) An optimized image matching method for determining in vivo TKA kinematics with a dual-orthogonal fluoroscopic imaging system. J Biomech Eng 128:588–595. doi:10.1115/1.2205865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blankenbaker DG, Haughton VM, Rogers BP, Meyerand ME, Fine JP (2006) Axial rotation of the lumbar spinal motion segments correlated with concordant pain on discography: a preliminary study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:795–799. doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett AF, Cornelius MW, Dankaerts W, O’Sullivan PB (2004) Spinal kinematics and trunk muscle activity in cyclists: a comparison between healthy controls and non-specific chronic low back pain subjects-a pilot investigation. Man Ther 9:211–219. doi:10.1016/j.math.2004.06.002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii R, Sakaura H, Mukai Y, Hosono N, Ishii T, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2007) Kinematics of the lumbar spine in trunk rotation: in vivo three-dimensional analysis using magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Spine J 16:1867–1874. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0373-3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson GR, Suggs JF, Freiberg AA, Durbhakula S, Li G (2006) Investigation of in vivo 6DOF total knee arthroplasty kinematics using a dual orthogonal fluoroscopic system. J Orthop Res 24:974–981. doi:10.1002/jor.20141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haughton VM, Rogers B, Meyerand ME, Resnick DK (2002) Measuring the axial rotation of lumbar vertebrae in vivo with MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 23:1110–1116PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kettler A, Marin F, Sattelmayer G, Mohr M, Mannel H, Durselen L, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2004) Finite helical axes of motion are a useful tool to describe the three-dimensional in vitro kinematics of the intact, injured and stabilised spine. Eur Spine J 13:553–559. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0710-8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotani Y, Abumi K, Shikinami Y, Takada T, Kadoya K, Shimamoto N, Ito M, Kadosawa T, Fujinaga T, Kaneda K (2002) Artificial intervertebral disc replacement using bioactive three-dimensional fabric: design, development, and preliminary animal study. Spine 27:929–935. doi:10.1097/00007632-200205010-00008 discussion 935–926PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulig K, Powers CM, Landel RF, Chen H, Fredericson M, Guillet M, Butts K (2007) Segmental lumbar mobility in individuals with low back pain: in vivo assessment during manual and self-imposed motion using dynamic MRI. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:8. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li G, DeFrate LE, Park SE, Gill TJ, Rubash HE (2005) In vivo articular cartilage contact kinematics of the knee: an investigation using dual-orthogonal fluoroscopy and magnetic resonance image-based computer models. Am J Sports Med 33:102–107. doi:10.1177/0363546504265577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perie D, Iatridis JC, Demers CN, Goswami T, Beaudoin G, Mwale F, Antoniou J (2006) Assessment of compressive modulus, hydraulic permeability and matrix content of trypsin-treated nucleus pulposus using quantitative MRI. J Biomech 39:1392–1400. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.04.015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
SariAli el H, Lemaire JP, Pascal-Mousselard H, Carrier H, Skalli W (2006) In vivo study of the kinematics in axial rotation of the lumbar spine after total intervertebral disc replacement: long-term results: a 10–14 years follow up evaluation. Eur Spine J 15:1501–1510. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0016-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar