Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system
A comparison between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system for in vitro biomechanical testing of the L5-S1 spinal unit was conducted. The objective was to compare the compliance and the coupling of the L5-S1 unit measured with an unconstrained and a partially constrained test for the t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European spine journal 2006-02, Vol.15 (1), p.74-81 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 81 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 74 |
| container_title | European spine journal |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | Charriere, E A Beutler, T Caride, M Mordasini, P Orr, T E Zysset, P K |
| description | A comparison between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system for in vitro biomechanical testing of the L5-S1 spinal unit was conducted. The objective was to compare the compliance and the coupling of the L5-S1 unit measured with an unconstrained and a partially constrained test for the three major physiological motions of the human spine. Very few studies have compared unconstrained and partially constrained testing systems using the same cadaveric functional spinal units (FSUs). Seven human L5-S1 units were therefore tested on both a pneumatic, unconstrained, and a servohydraulic, partially constrained system. Each FSU was tested along three motions: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR). The obtained kinematics on both systems is not equivalent, except for the FE case, where both motions are similar. The directions of coupled motions were similar for both tests, but their magnitudes were smaller in the partially constrained configuration. The use of a partially constrained system to characterize LB and AR of the lumbosacral FSU decreased significantly the measured stiffness of the segment. The unconstrained system is today's "gold standard" for the characterization of FSUs. The selected partially constrained method seems also to be an appropriate way to characterize FSUs for specific applications. Care should be taken using the latter method when the coupled motions are important. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00586-004-0807-0 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3454568</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>987829941</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c2bba5d94805fa9b7d36094c99153f92bb5f5cd4221d921c0c4aae883172358d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1q3DAUhUVpaKZJH6CbIrrITsnVny1lUQhD2xQGukiyFrIsNwq2NLHkhHn7KszQpl0Igc53DvfqIPSRwjkFaC8ygFQNARAEFLQE3qAVFZwR0Jy9RSvQAkjTUn2M3uf8AEClhuYdOqbVJqqwQmWdpu0YbHQepwGXe483ktxQnLch2hEvMZRLbLGrmJ1tCU8e57L0O9z58ux9xDZWyKWYy2xD9H19qAdXugQ7jjv8Wsu7XPx0io4GO2b_4XCfoLtvX2_X12Tz8_uP9dWGOMFEIY51nZW9FgrkYHXX9rypKzmtqeSDrqocpOsFY7TXjDpwwlqvFKct41L1_AR92edul27yvfOxzjGa7RwmO-9MssH8q8Rwb36lJ8OFFLJRNeDsEDCnx8XnYqaQnR9HG31asmnahrWNYhX8_B_4kJa5fmA2jINQLRO6QnQPuTnlPPvhzyQUzEuhZl-oqYWal0INVM-n1yv8dRwa5L8Bvpadag</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>230487249</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Charriere, E A ; Beutler, T ; Caride, M ; Mordasini, P ; Orr, T E ; Zysset, P K</creator><creatorcontrib>Charriere, E A ; Beutler, T ; Caride, M ; Mordasini, P ; Orr, T E ; Zysset, P K</creatorcontrib><description>A comparison between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system for in vitro biomechanical testing of the L5-S1 spinal unit was conducted. The objective was to compare the compliance and the coupling of the L5-S1 unit measured with an unconstrained and a partially constrained test for the three major physiological motions of the human spine. Very few studies have compared unconstrained and partially constrained testing systems using the same cadaveric functional spinal units (FSUs). Seven human L5-S1 units were therefore tested on both a pneumatic, unconstrained, and a servohydraulic, partially constrained system. Each FSU was tested along three motions: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR). The obtained kinematics on both systems is not equivalent, except for the FE case, where both motions are similar. The directions of coupled motions were similar for both tests, but their magnitudes were smaller in the partially constrained configuration. The use of a partially constrained system to characterize LB and AR of the lumbosacral FSU decreased significantly the measured stiffness of the segment. The unconstrained system is today's "gold standard" for the characterization of FSUs. The selected partially constrained method seems also to be an appropriate way to characterize FSUs for specific applications. Care should be taken using the latter method when the coupled motions are important.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0940-6719</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0932</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0807-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15864671</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Cadaver ; Compliance ; Equipment Design ; Equipment Safety ; Female ; History, 18th Century ; Humans ; Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Original ; Orthopedics - methods ; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology ; Rotation ; Sacrum - physiology ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Stress, Mechanical</subject><ispartof>European spine journal, 2006-02, Vol.15 (1), p.74-81</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2006</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c2bba5d94805fa9b7d36094c99153f92bb5f5cd4221d921c0c4aae883172358d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c2bba5d94805fa9b7d36094c99153f92bb5f5cd4221d921c0c4aae883172358d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3454568/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3454568/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15864671$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Charriere, E A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beutler, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caride, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mordasini, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orr, T E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zysset, P K</creatorcontrib><title>Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system</title><title>European spine journal</title><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><description>A comparison between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system for in vitro biomechanical testing of the L5-S1 spinal unit was conducted. The objective was to compare the compliance and the coupling of the L5-S1 unit measured with an unconstrained and a partially constrained test for the three major physiological motions of the human spine. Very few studies have compared unconstrained and partially constrained testing systems using the same cadaveric functional spinal units (FSUs). Seven human L5-S1 units were therefore tested on both a pneumatic, unconstrained, and a servohydraulic, partially constrained system. Each FSU was tested along three motions: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR). The obtained kinematics on both systems is not equivalent, except for the FE case, where both motions are similar. The directions of coupled motions were similar for both tests, but their magnitudes were smaller in the partially constrained configuration. The use of a partially constrained system to characterize LB and AR of the lumbosacral FSU decreased significantly the measured stiffness of the segment. The unconstrained system is today's "gold standard" for the characterization of FSUs. The selected partially constrained method seems also to be an appropriate way to characterize FSUs for specific applications. Care should be taken using the latter method when the coupled motions are important.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>Compliance</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Equipment Safety</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>History, 18th Century</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Orthopedics - methods</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</subject><subject>Rotation</subject><subject>Sacrum - physiology</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><issn>0940-6719</issn><issn>1432-0932</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1q3DAUhUVpaKZJH6CbIrrITsnVny1lUQhD2xQGukiyFrIsNwq2NLHkhHn7KszQpl0Igc53DvfqIPSRwjkFaC8ygFQNARAEFLQE3qAVFZwR0Jy9RSvQAkjTUn2M3uf8AEClhuYdOqbVJqqwQmWdpu0YbHQepwGXe483ktxQnLch2hEvMZRLbLGrmJ1tCU8e57L0O9z58ux9xDZWyKWYy2xD9H19qAdXugQ7jjv8Wsu7XPx0io4GO2b_4XCfoLtvX2_X12Tz8_uP9dWGOMFEIY51nZW9FgrkYHXX9rypKzmtqeSDrqocpOsFY7TXjDpwwlqvFKct41L1_AR92edul27yvfOxzjGa7RwmO-9MssH8q8Rwb36lJ8OFFLJRNeDsEDCnx8XnYqaQnR9HG31asmnahrWNYhX8_B_4kJa5fmA2jINQLRO6QnQPuTnlPPvhzyQUzEuhZl-oqYWal0INVM-n1yv8dRwa5L8Bvpadag</recordid><startdate>20060201</startdate><enddate>20060201</enddate><creator>Charriere, E A</creator><creator>Beutler, T</creator><creator>Caride, M</creator><creator>Mordasini, P</creator><creator>Orr, T E</creator><creator>Zysset, P K</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer-Verlag</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060201</creationdate><title>Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system</title><author>Charriere, E A ; Beutler, T ; Caride, M ; Mordasini, P ; Orr, T E ; Zysset, P K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c2bba5d94805fa9b7d36094c99153f92bb5f5cd4221d921c0c4aae883172358d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>Compliance</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Equipment Safety</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>History, 18th Century</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Orthopedics - methods</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</topic><topic>Rotation</topic><topic>Sacrum - physiology</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Charriere, E A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beutler, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caride, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mordasini, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orr, T E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zysset, P K</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Charriere, E A</au><au>Beutler, T</au><au>Caride, M</au><au>Mordasini, P</au><au>Orr, T E</au><au>Zysset, P K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system</atitle><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><date>2006-02-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>74</spage><epage>81</epage><pages>74-81</pages><issn>0940-6719</issn><eissn>1432-0932</eissn><abstract>A comparison between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system for in vitro biomechanical testing of the L5-S1 spinal unit was conducted. The objective was to compare the compliance and the coupling of the L5-S1 unit measured with an unconstrained and a partially constrained test for the three major physiological motions of the human spine. Very few studies have compared unconstrained and partially constrained testing systems using the same cadaveric functional spinal units (FSUs). Seven human L5-S1 units were therefore tested on both a pneumatic, unconstrained, and a servohydraulic, partially constrained system. Each FSU was tested along three motions: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR). The obtained kinematics on both systems is not equivalent, except for the FE case, where both motions are similar. The directions of coupled motions were similar for both tests, but their magnitudes were smaller in the partially constrained configuration. The use of a partially constrained system to characterize LB and AR of the lumbosacral FSU decreased significantly the measured stiffness of the segment. The unconstrained system is today's "gold standard" for the characterization of FSUs. The selected partially constrained method seems also to be an appropriate way to characterize FSUs for specific applications. Care should be taken using the latter method when the coupled motions are important.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><pmid>15864671</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00586-004-0807-0</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0940-6719 |
| ispartof | European spine journal, 2006-02, Vol.15 (1), p.74-81 |
| issn | 0940-6719 1432-0932 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3454568 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Aged Aged, 80 and over Biomechanical Phenomena Cadaver Compliance Equipment Design Equipment Safety Female History, 18th Century Humans Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology Male Middle Aged Original Orthopedics - methods Range of Motion, Articular - physiology Rotation Sacrum - physiology Sensitivity and Specificity Stress, Mechanical |
| title | Compliance of the L5-S1 spinal unit: a comparative study between an unconstrained and a partially constrained system |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T18%3A57%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Compliance%20of%20the%20L5-S1%20spinal%20unit:%20a%20comparative%20study%20between%20an%20unconstrained%20and%20a%20partially%20constrained%20system&rft.jtitle=European%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Charriere,%20E%20A&rft.date=2006-02-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=74&rft.epage=81&rft.pages=74-81&rft.issn=0940-6719&rft.eissn=1432-0932&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00586-004-0807-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E987829941%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=230487249&rft_id=info:pmid/15864671&rfr_iscdi=true |