Validation of the AnyBody full body musculoskeletal model in computing lumbar spine loads at L4L5 level

In the panorama of available musculoskeletal modeling software, AnyBody software is a commercial tool that provides a full body musculoskeletal model which is increasingly exploited by numerous researchers worldwide. In this regard, model validation becomes essential to guarantee the suitability of the model in representing the simulated system. When focusing on lumbar spine, the previous works aimed at validating the AnyBody model in computing the intervertebral loads held several limitations, and a comprehensive validation is to be considered as lacking.The present study was aimed at extensively validating the suitability of the AnyBody model in computing lumbar spine loads at L4L5 level. The intersegmental loads were calculated during twelve specific exercise tasks designed to accurately replicate the conditions during which Wilke et al. (2001) measured in vivo the L4L5 intradiscal pressure. Motion capture data of one volunteer subject were acquired during the execution of the tasks and then imported into AnyBody to set model kinematics. Two different approaches in computing intradiscal pressure from the intersegmental load were evaluated. Lumbopelvic rhythm was compared with reference in vivo measurements to assess the accuracy of the lumbopelvic kinematics.Positive agreement was confirmed between the calculated pressures and the in vivo measurements, thus demonstrating the suitability of the AnyBody model. Specific caution needs to be taken only when considering postures characterized by large lateral displacements. Minor discrepancy was found assessing lumbopelvic rhythm. The present findings promote the AnyBody model as an appropriate tool to non-invasively evaluate the lumbar loads at L4L5 in physiological activities.     

Validation of lumbar spine loading from a musculoskeletal model including the lower limbs and lumbar spine

Low back mechanics are important to quantify to study injury, pain and disability. As in vivo forces are difficult to measure directly, modeling approaches are commonly used to estimate these forces. Validation of model estimates is critical to gain confidence in modeling results across populations of interest, such as people with lower-limb amputation. Motion capture, ground reaction force and electromyographic data were collected from ten participants without an amputation (five male/five female) and five participants with a unilateral transtibial amputation (four male/one female) during trunk-pelvis range of motion trials in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. A musculoskeletal model with a detailed lumbar spine and the legs including 294 muscles was used to predict L4-L5 loading and muscle activations using static optimization. Model estimates of L4-L5 intervertebral joint loading were compared to measured intradiscal pressures from the literature and muscle activations were compared to electromyographic signals. Model loading estimates were only significantly different from experimental measurements during trunk extension for males without an amputation and for people with an amputation, which may suggest a greater portion of L4-L5 axial load transfer through the facet joints, as facet loads are not captured by intradiscal pressure transducers. Pressure estimates between the model and previous work were not significantly different for flexion, lateral bending or axial rotation. Timing of model-estimated muscle activations compared well with electromyographic activity of the lumbar paraspinals and upper erector spinae. Validated estimates of low back loading can increase the applicability of musculoskeletal models to clinical diagnosis and treatment.     

Mechanical demands on the lower back in patients with non-chronic low back pain during a symmetric lowering and lifting task

There is limited information in the literature related to the lower back loading in patients with LBP, particularly those with non-chronic LBP. Toward addressing such a research gap, a case-control study was conducted to explore the differences in lower back mechanical loads between a group of females (n = 19) with non-chronic, non-specific LBP and a group of asymptomatic females (n = 19). The differences in lower back mechanical loads were determined when participants completed one symmetric lowering and lifting of a 4.5 kg load at their preferred cadence. The axial, shearing, and moment components of task demand at the time of peak moment component as well as measures of peak trunk kinematics were analyzed. Patient vs. asymptomatic group performed the task with smaller peak thoracic rotation and peak lumbar flexion. While no differences in the moment component of task demand on the lower back between the patients and controls were found, the shearing (40–50 age group) and axial components of task demand were, respectively, larger and smaller in patients vs. controls. Whether alterations in lower back loads in patients with non-chronic LBP are in response to pain or preceded the pain, the long-term exposure to abnormal lower back mechanics may adversely affect spinal structure and increase the likelihood of further injury or pain. Therefore, the underlying reason(s) as well as the potential consequence(s) of such altered lower back mechanics in patients with non-chronic LBP should to be further investigated.     

The effect of control strategies for an active back-support exoskeleton on spine loading and kinematics during lifting

With mechanical loading as the main risk factor for LBP, exoskeletons (EXO) are designed to reduce the load on the back by taking over part of the moment normally generated by back muscles. The present study investigated the effect of an active exoskeleton, controlled using three different control modes (INCLINATION, EMG & HYBRID), on spinal compression forces during lifting with various techniques.Ten healthy male subjects lifted a 15 kg box, with three lifting techniques (free, squat & stoop), each of which was performed four times, once without EXO and once each with the three different control modes. Using inverse dynamics, we calculated L5/S1 joint moments. Subsequently, we estimated spine forces using an EMG-assisted trunk model.Peak compression forces substantially decreased by 17.8% when wearing the EXO compared to NO EXO. However, this reduction was partly, by about one third, attributable to a reduction of 25% in peak lifting speed when wearing the EXO. While subtle differences in back load patterns were seen between the three control modes, no differences in peak compression forces were found. In part, this may be related to limitations in the torque generating capacity of the EXO. Therefore, with the current limitations of the motors it was impossible to determine which of the control modes was best. Despite these limitations, the EXO still reduced both peak and cumulative compression forces by about 18%.     

Development of a multiscale model of the human lumbar spine for investigation of tissue loads in people with and without a transtibial amputation during sit-to-stand

Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology - Quantification of lumbar spine load transfer is important for understanding low back pain, especially among persons with a lower limb amputation....     

A 3D lower limb musculoskeletal model for simultaneous estimation of musculo-tendon,joint contact,ligament and bone forces during gait

Musculo-tendon forces and joint reaction forces are typically estimated using a two-step method, computing first the musculo-tendon forces by a static optimization procedure and then deducing the joint reaction forces from the force equilibrium. However, this method does not allow studying the interactions between musculo-tendon forces and joint reaction forces in establishing this equilibrium and the joint reaction forces are usually overestimated. This study introduces a new 3D lower limb musculoskeletal model based on a one-step static optimization procedure allowing simultaneous musculo-tendon, joint contact, ligament and bone forces estimation during gait. It is postulated that this approach, by giving access to the forces transmitted by these musculoskeletal structures at hip, tibiofemoral, patellofemoral and ankle joints, modeled using anatomically consistent kinematic models, should ease the validation of the model using joint contact forces measured with instrumented prostheses. A blinded validation based on four datasets was made under two different minimization conditions (i.e., C1 – only musculo-tendon forces are minimized, and C2 – musculo-tendon, joint contact, ligament and bone forces are minimized while focusing more specifically on tibiofemoral joint contacts). The results show that the model is able to estimate in most cases the correct timing of musculo-tendon forces during normal gait (i.e., the mean coefficient of active/inactive state concordance between estimated musculo-tendon force and measured EMG envelopes was C1: 65.87% and C2: 60.46%). The results also showed that the model is potentially able to well estimate joint contact, ligament and bone forces and more specifically medial (i.e., the mean RMSE between estimated joint contact force and in vivo measurement was C1: 1.14BW and C2: 0.39BW) and lateral (i.e., C1: 0.65BW and C2: 0.28BW) tibiofemoral contact forces during normal gait. However, the results remain highly influenced by the optimization weights that can bring to somewhat aphysiological musculo-tendon forces.