Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 1384–1393 | Cite as

Pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch results in increased segmental joint loads in the unfused and fused lumbar spine

  • Marco Senteler
  • Bernhard Weisse
  • Jess G. Snedeker
  • Dominique A. Rothenfluh
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASD) has been reported to occur in up to 27 % of lumbar fusion patients. A previous study identified patients at risk according to the difference of pelvic incidence and lordosis. Patients with a difference between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis >15° have been found to have a 20 times higher risk for ASD. Therefore, it was the aim of the present study to investigate forces acting on the adjacent segment in relation to pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (PILL) mismatch as a measure of spino-pelvic alignment using rigid body modeling to decipher the underlying forces as potential contributors to degeneration of the adjacent segment.

Methods

Sagittal configurations of 81 subjects were reconstructed in a musculoskeletal simulation environment. Lumbar spine height was normalized, and body and segmental mass properties were kept constant throughout the population to isolate the effect of sagittal alignment. A uniform forward/backward flexion movement (0°–30°–0°) was simulated for all subjects. Intervertebral joint loads at lumbar level L3–L4 and L4–L5 were determined before and after simulated fusion.

Results

In the unfused state, an approximately linear relationship between sagittal alignment and intervertebral loads could be established (shear: 0° flexion r = 0.36, p < 0.001, 30° flexion r = 0.48, p < 0.001; compression: 0° flexion r = 0.29, p < 0.01, 30° flexion r = 0.40, p < 0.001). Additionally, shear changes during the transition from upright to 30° flexed posture were on average 32 % higher at level L3–L4 and 14 % higher at level L4–L5 in alignments that were clinically observed to be prone to ASD. Simulated fusion affected shear forces at the level L3–L4 by 15 % (L4–L5 fusion) and 23 % (L4–S1 fusion) more for alignments at risk for ASD.

Conclusion

Higher adjacent segment shear forces in alignments at risk for ASD already prior to fusion provide a mechanistic explanation for the clinically observed correlation between PILL mismatch and rate of adjacent segment degeneration.

Keywords

Musculoskeletal modeling Spino-pelvic alignment Lumbar fusion Shear Intervertebral disc degeneration Adjacent segment degeneration 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Xia X-P, Chen H-L, Cheng H-B (2013) Prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine 38:597–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhu Q, Itshayek E, Jones CF, Schwab T, Larson CR, Lenke LG, Cripton PA (2012) Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 5):S599–S611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Auerbach JD, Wills BPD, McIntosh TC, Balderston RA (2007) Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 32:527–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Tim Yoon S, Minamide A, Su Kim K, Tomita K, Hutton WC (2003) Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 28:1560–1566PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt H, Galbusera F, Rohlmann A, Zander T, Wilke H-J (2012) Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on spine kinematics and facet joint loads in flexion and extension: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 5):S663–S674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pellet N, Aunoble S, Meyrat R, Rigal J, Le Huec JC (2011) Sagittal balance parameters influence indications for lumbar disc arthroplasty or ALIF. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):647–662PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrey C, Roussouly P, Perrin G, Le Huec J-C (2011) Sagittal balance disorders in severe degenerative spine. Can we identify the compensatory mechanisms? Eur spine J 20(Suppl 5):626–633PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galbusera F, Wilke H-J, Brayda-Bruno M, Costa F, Fornari M (2013) Influence of sagittal balance on spinal lumbar loads: a numerical approach. Clin Biomech 28(4):370–377. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.02.006 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christophy M, Faruk Senan NA, Lotz JC, O’Reilly OM (2012) A musculoskeletal model for the lumbar spine. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 11:19–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Zee M, Hansen L, Wong C, Rasmussen J, Simonsen EB (2007) A generic detailed rigid-body lumbar spine model. J Biomech 40:1219–1227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pearsall DJ, Reid JG, Livingston LA (1996) Segmental inertial parameters of the human trunk as determined from computed tomography. Ann Biomed Eng 24:198–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sato K, Kikuchi S, Yonezawa T (1999) In vivo intradiscal pressure measurement in healthy individuals and in patients with ongoing back problems. Spine 24:2468–2474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilke H-J, Neef P, Hinz B, Seidel H, Claes L (2001) Intradiscal pressure together with anthropometric data–a data set for the validation of models. Clin Biomech 16(Suppl 1):S111–S126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim K, Kim YH (2008) Role of trunk muscles in generating follower load in the lumbar spine of neutral standing posture. J Biomech Eng 130:041005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arjmand N, Gagnon D, Plamondon A, Shirazi-Adl A, Larivière C (2009) Comparison of trunk muscle forces and spinal loads estimated by two biomechanical models. Clin Biomech 24:533–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Kayser R, Bender A, Bergmann G (2008) Loads on a telemeterized vertebral body replacement measured in two patients. Spine 33:1170–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Delp SL, Anderson FC, Arnold AS, Loan P, Habib A, John CT, Guendelman E, Thelen DG (2007) OpenSim: open-source software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54:1940–1950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ikeda E, Schenkman M, Riley P, Hodge W (1991) Influence of age on dynamics of rising from a chair. Phys Ther 71:473–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krebs DE, Wong D, Jevsevar D, Riley PO, Hodge WA (1992) Trunk kinematics during locomotor activities. Phys Ther 72:505–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Consmüller T, Rohlmann A, Weinland D, Druschel C, Duda GN, Taylor WR (2012) Velocity of lordosis angle during spinal flexion and extension. PLoS ONE 7:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mehta VA, Amin A, Omeis I, Gokaslan ZL, Gottfried ON (2012) Implications of spinopelvic alignment for the spine surgeon. Neurosurgery 70(3):707–721. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31823262ea PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2002) Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J 11:80–87PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Granata KP, Wilson SE (2001) Trunk posture and spinal stability. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16:650–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hadjipavlou AG, Tzermiadianos MN, Bogduk N, Zindrick MR (2008) The pathophysiology of disc degeneration: a critical review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1261–1270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lund ME, de Zee M, Andersen MS, Rasmussen J (2012) On validation of multibody musculoskeletal models. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 226:82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Damasceno LHF, Catarin SRG, Campos AD, Defino HLA (2006) Lumbar lordosis: a study of angle values and of vertebral bodies and intervertebral discs role. Acta Ortop Bras 14:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adams MA, Hutton WC (1981) The relevance of torsion to the mechanical derangement of the lumbar spine. Spine 6:241–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barbir A, Godburn K, Michalek A, Lai A (2011) Effects of torsion on intervertebral disc gene expression and biomechanics, using a rat tail model. Spine 36:607–614PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim J, Yang SJ, Kim H, Kim Y, Park JB, Dubose C, Lim TH (2012) Effect of shear force on intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration: an in vivo rat study. Ann Biomed Eng 40(9):1996–2004. doi: 10.1007/s10439-012-0570-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Senteler
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bernhard Weisse
    • 3
  • Jess G. Snedeker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dominique A. Rothenfluh
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics BalgristUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for BiomechanicsETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Laboratory for Mechanical Systems EngineeringEMPA, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and TechnologyDübendorfSwitzerland
  4. 4.Nuffield Orthopaedic CentreOxford University Hospitals NHS TrustOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations