Passive intervertebral restraint is different in patients with treatment-resistant chronic nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison.

PURPOSE: In vivo studies of continuous lumbar sagittal plane motion have found passive intervertebral motion to be more uneven in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) than healthy controls, but the mechanisms are unclear. This study aimed to compare patients with CNSLBP with a matched group of pain-free controls for intervertebral restraint during passive recumbent bending. METHODS: Seventeen patients with CNSLBP and minimal disc degeneration who had quantitative fluoroscopy investigations were matched to 17 healthy controls from a database acquired using the same imaging protocol. The entire database (n = 136) was examined for clustering of peaking times, magnitudes and ROM of the first derivatives of the intervertebral angle/motion curves (PTFD, PMFD and ROM) during flexion and return that might introduce confounding. The groups were then compared for differences in these variables. RESULTS: There were significant segmental ROM differences among clusters in the database when PMFD and ROM were used as clustering variables, indicating heterogeneity. However, in the patient-control study, it was PTFD (velocity) that differentiated the groups. At L5-S1, this was at 10.82% of the motion path compared with 25.06% in the controls (p = 0.0002). For L4-5, PTFD was at 23.42% of the motion path in patients and 16.33% in controls (p = 0.0694) suggesting a reduced initial bending moment there. There were no significant differences for PMFD or ROM. CONCLUSION: Peaking time of passive intervertebral velocity occurs early at L5-S1 in patients with CNSLBP; however, these findings should be treated with caution pending their replication. Future studies should explore relationships with altered disc pressures and biochemistry. Usefulness for monitoring regenerative disc therapies should be considered.

Disc Degeneration and Cervical Spine Intervertebral Motion: A Cross-Sectional Study in Patients with Neck Pain and Matched Healthy Controls.

While neck pain can be defined in clinical terms, in most cases the underlying pathophysiology is largely unknown. Regional cervical spine range of motion is often found to be reduced in patients with neck pain compared to persons without pain although it is not clear if the decreased range is cause or effect. Less is known about the role of intervertebral kinematics and how that might be related to the presence of disc degeneration. In this study, the prevalence of intervertebral disc degeneration and continuous cervical intervertebral motion were both measured utilizing quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) in patients with subacute or chronic neck pain (n = 29) and gender-matched healthy controls (n = 30). A composite disc degeneration (CDD) score was calculated for each participant from the first, neutral, lateral fluoroscopic image. Intervertebral motion sharing parameters of motion-sharing inequality (MSI) and motion-sharing variability (MSV) were derived from the active cervical motion sequences obtained while patients were seated. The objective was to determine if average age, CDD, MSI, and MSV values were correlated and if there were differences in these variables between the neck pain group and the healthy control group. Correlation analysis was conducted for age, CDD, MSI, and MSV in each group. Age was moderately correlated with MSV in cervical spine extension in patients only (r = 0.63, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the prevalence of disc degeneration (CDD) between patients, who had on average mild pain and related disability, and healthy controls (median CDD 2 both groups, p = 0.94). There were also no significant differences in either flexion or extension intervertebral motion-sharing inequality or variability (MSI or MSV) between groups as measured during active cervical motion.

Spatio-temporal clustering of lumbar intervertebral flexion interactions in 127 asymptomatic individuals.

The purpose of this study was to categorize asymptomatic participants based on the clustering of spatial and temporal intervertebral kinematic variables during lumbar flexion. Lumbar segmental interactions (L2-S1) were evaluated in 127 asymptomatic participants during flexion using fluoroscopy. First, four variables were identified consisting of: 1. Range of motion (ROMC), 2. Peaking time of the first derivative for separate segmentation (PTFDs), 3. Peaking magnitude of the first derivative (PMFD), and 4. Peaking time of the first derivative for stepwise (grouped) segmentation (PTFDss). These variables were used to cluster and order the lumbar levels. The number of participants required to constitute a cluster was chosen as 7. Participants formed eight (ROMC), four (PTFDs), eight (PMFD), and four (PTFDss) clusters, which included 85%, 80%, 77%, and 60% of them, respectively, according to the above features. For all clustering variables, angle time series of some lumbar levels showed significant differences between clusters. However, in general, all clusters could be categorized based on the segmental mobility contexts into three main groups as incidental macro clusters: the upper (L2-L4 > L4-S1), middle (L2-L3 < L3-L5 > L5-S1) and lower (L2-L4 < L4-S1) domains. There are spatial and temporal segmental interactions and between-subject variability in asymptomatic participants. In addition, the differences in angle time series among the clusters have provided evidence of feedback control strategies, while the stepwise segmentation facilitates consideration of the lumbar spine as a system and provides supplementary information about segmental interactions. Clinically, these facts could be taken into account when considering any intervention, but especially fusion surgery.

Effects of a microgravity SkinSuit on lumbar geometry and kinematics.

PURPOSE: Astronauts returning from long ISS missions have demonstrated an increased incidence of lumbar disc herniation accompanied by biomechanical and morphological changes associated with spine elongation. This research describes a ground-based study of the effects of an axial compression countermeasure Mk VI SkinSuit designed to reload the spine and reduce these changes before return to terrestrial gravity. METHODS: Twenty healthy male volunteers aged 21-36 without back pain participated. Each lay overnight on a Hyper Buoyancy Flotation (HBF) bed for 12 h on two occasions 6 weeks apart. On the second occasion participants donned a Mk VI SkinSuit designed to axially load the spine at 0.2 Gz during the last 4 h of flotation. Immediately after each exposure, participants received recumbent MRI and flexion-extension quantitative fluoroscopy scans of their lumbar spines, measuring differences between spine geometry and intervertebral kinematics with and without the SkinSuit. This was followed by the same procedure whilst weight bearing. Paired comparisons were performed for all measurements. RESULTS: Following Mk VI SkinSuit use, participants evidenced more flexion RoM at L3-4 (p = 0.01) and L4-5 (p = 0.003), more translation at L3-4 (p = 0.02), lower dynamic disc height at L5-S1 (p = 0.002), lower lumbar spine length (p = 0.01) and greater lordosis (p = 0.0001) than without the Mk VI SkinSuit. Disc cross-sectional area and volume were not significantly affected. CONCLUSION: The MkVI SkinSuit restores lumbar mobility and lordosis following 4 h of wearing during hyper buoyancy flotation in a healthy control population and may be an effective countermeasure for post space flight lumbar disc herniation.

Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Changes in Cervical Motion Segment Interactions in Patients With Neck Pain: An Observational Study With Matched Asymptomatic Controls.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to determine (1) if maximal intervertebral range of motion (IV-RoMmax) and laxity interactions exist in the cervical spine during flexion, (2) if there are differences in IV-RoMmax or laxity parameters between baseline and follow-up in both patients with neck pain and asymptomatic controls, and (3) if there is an effect on IV-RoMmax/laxity relationships in patients with neck pain after spinal manipulative therapy. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with subacute or chronic neck pain and 33 asymptomatic controls were imaged during flexion and extension, pre and post a course of cervical chiropractic manipulation (patient group only), using a standardized quantitative fluoroscopy acquisition protocol. RESULTS: Significant correlations between IV-RoMs were found in both neck pain and neck pain-free populations at baseline and follow-up. Positive relationships were found between C2-C3 and C3-C4 and C4-C5 and C5-C6 IV-RoM in both populations. A negative correlation was found in the patient group at baseline between C1-C2 and C5-C6, but not at follow-up. Significant relationships were also found for segmental laxity, with a negative correlation found at C1-C2 and C5-C6 in the patient group only and at baseline only. CONCLUSION: Distinct relationships were found between both intraregional IV-RoM and laxity, many of which were present in both groups at baseline and follow-up, suggestive of normal kinematic behaviors. Changes in correlations unique to the patient group may be indicative of a change in regional kinematics resulting from the manipulation intervention. Spinal manipulative therapy may have a therapeutic effect by influencing cervical kinematics at the regional level.

A Reference Database of Standardised Continuous Lumbar Intervertebral Motion Analysis for Conducting Patient-Specific Comparisons.

Lumbar instability has long been thought of as the failure of lumbar vertebrae to maintain their normal patterns of displacement. However, it is unknown what these patterns consist of. Research using quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) has shown that continuous lumbar intervertebral patterns of rotational displacement can be reliably measured during standing flexion and return motion using standardised protocols and can be used to assess patients with suspected lumbar spine motion disorders. However, normative values are needed to make individualised comparisons. One hundred and thirty-one healthy asymptomatic participants were recruited and performed guided flexion and return motion by following the rotating arm of an upright motion frame. Fluoroscopic image acquisition at 15fps was performed and individual intervertebral levels from L2-3 to L5-S1 were tracked and analysed during separate outward flexion and return phases. Results were presented as proportional intervertebral motion representing these phases using continuous means and 95%CIs, followed by verification of the differences between levels using Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM). A secondary analysis of 8 control participants matched to 8 patients with chronic, non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) was performed for comparison. One hundred and twenty-seven asymptomatic participants' data were analysed. Their ages ranged from 18 to 70 years (mean 38.6) with mean body mass index 23.8 kg/m2 48.8% were female. Both the flexion and return phases for each level evidenced continuous change in mean proportional motion share, with narrow confidence intervals, highly significant differences and discrete motion paths between levels as confirmed by SPM. Patients in the secondary analysis evidenced significantly less L5-S1 motion than controls (p < 0.05). A reference database of spinal displacement patterns during lumbar (L2-S1) intersegmental flexion and return motion using a standardised motion protocol using fluoroscopy is presented. Spinal displacement patterns in asymptomatic individuals were found to be distinctive and consistent for each intervertebral level, and to continuously change during bending and return. This database may be used to allow continuous intervertebral kinematics to drive dynamic models of joint and muscular forces as well as reference values against which to make patient-specific comparisons in suspected cases of lumbar spine motion disorders.

Novel assessment of the variation in cervical inter-vertebral motor control in a healthy pain-free population.

Spinal control at intervertebral levels is dependent on interactions between the active, passive and neural control elements. However, this has never been quantifiable, and has therefore been outside the reach of clinical assessments and research. This study used fluoroscopy during repeated unconstrained flexion and return neck movements to calculate intersegmental motor control (MC), defined as the difference and variation in repeated continuous angular motion from its average path. The study aimed to determine control values for MC at individual levels and its variability. Twenty male volunteers aged 19-29 received fluoroscopic screening of their cervical spines during 4 repetitions of neutral to full flexion and return motion. Moving vertebral images from C0-C1 to C6-C7 were tracked using cross-correlation codes written in Matlab. MC for each level was defined as the mean of the absolute differences between each repetition's angular path and their mean and its variability as represented by the SD. 1-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons were used to identify significant contrasts between levels. The mean MC differences and SDs were highest at C1-2, suggesting that this level has the least control and the most variability. Results at this level alone were highly significant (F-ratio 10.88 and 9.79 P < 0.0001). Significant contrasts were only found between C1-C2 and all other levels. The mean MC difference for summed C1-6 levels was 3.4° (0.7-6.1). This study is the first to quantify intervertebral MC in the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Studies of neck pain patients are now merited.

Investigator analytic repeatability of two new intervertebral motion biomarkers for chronic, nonspecific low back pain in a cohort of healthy controls.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the mechanisms underlying chronic, nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) is essential to advance personalized care and identify the most appropriate intervention. Recently, two intervertebral motion biomarkers termed "Motion Sharing Inequality" (MSI) and "Motion Sharing Variability" (MSV) have been identified for CNSLBP using quantitative fluoroscopy (QF). The aim of this study was to conduct intra- and inter-investigator analytic repeatability studies to determine the extent to which investigator error affects their measurement in clinical studies. METHODS: A cross-sectional cohort study was conducted using the image sequences of 30 healthy controls who received QF screening during passive recumbent flexion motion. Two independent investigators analysed the image sequences for MSI and MSV from October to November 2018. Intra and inter- investigator repeatability studies were performed using intraclass correlations (ICC), standard errors of measurement (SEM) and minimal differences (MD). RESULTS: Intra-investigator ICCs were 0.90 (0.81,0.95) (SEM 0.029) and 0.78 (0.59,0.89) (SEM 0.020) for MSI and MSV, respectively. Inter-investigator ICCs 0.93 (0.86,0.97) (SEM 0.024) and 0.55 (0.24,0.75) (SEM 0.024). SEMs for MSI and MSV were approximately 10 and 30% of their group means respectively. The MDs for MSI for intra- and inter-investigator repeatability were 0.079 and 0.067, respectively and for MSV 0.055 and 0.067. CONCLUSIONS: MSI demonstrated substantial intra- and inter-investigator repeatability, suggesting that investigator input has a minimal influence on its measurement. MSV demonstrated moderate intra-investigator reliability and fair inter-investigator repeatability. Confirmation in patients with CNSLBP is now required.

Passive intervertebral motion characteristics in chronic mid to low back pain: A multivariate analysis.

PURPOSE: Studies comparing back pain patients and controls on continuous intervertebral kinematics have shown differences using univariate parameters. Hitherto, multivariate approaches have not been applied to this high dimensional data, risking clinically relevant features being undetected. A multivariate re-analysis was carried out to estimate main modes of variation, and explore group differences. METHODS: 40 participants with mechanical back pain and 40 matched controls underwent passive recumbent quantitative videofluoroscopy. Intervertebral angles of L2/3 to L4/5 were obtained for right and left side-bending, extension, and flexion. Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to identify the main modes of variation, and to obtain a lower dimensional representation for comparing groups. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was used to identify how groups differed. RESULTS: PCA identified three main modes of variation, all relating to range of motion (ROM) and its distribution between joints. Significant differences were found for coronal plane motions only (right: p = 0.02, left: p = 0.03) . LDA identified a shift in ROM to more cranial joints in the back pain group. CONCLUSION: The results confirm altered motion sharing between intervertebral joints in back pain, and provides more details about this. Further work is required to establish how these findings lead to pain, and so strengthen the theoretical basis for treatment and management of this condition.

An in vivo study exploring correlations between early-to-moderate disc degeneration and flexion mobility in the lumbar spine.

PURPOSE: Early disc degeneration (DD) has been thought to be associated with loss of spine stability. However, before this can be understood in relation to back pain, it is necessary to know the relationship between DD and intervertebral motion in people without pain. This study aimed to find out if early-to-moderate DD is associated with intervertebral motion in people without back pain. METHODS: Ten pain-free adults, aged 51-71, received recumbent and weight bearing MRI scans and quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) screenings during recumbent and upright lumbar flexion. Forty individual level and 10 composite (L2-S1) radiographic and MRI DD gradings were recorded and correlated with intervertebral flexion ROM, translation, laxity and motion sharing inequality and variability for both positions. RESULTS: Kinematic values were similar to previous control studies. DD was evidenced up to moderate levels by both radiographic and MRI grading. Disc height loss correlated slightly, but negatively with flexion during weight bearing flexion (R = - 0.356, p = 0.0.025). Composite MRI DD and T2 signal loss evidenced similar relationships (R = - 0.305, R = - 0.267) but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.056, p = 0.096). No significant relationships between any other kinematic variables and DD were found. CONCLUSION: This study found only small, indefinite associations between early-to-moderate DD and intervertebral motion in healthy controls. Motion sharing in the absence of pain was also not related to early DD, consistent with previous control studies. Further research is needed to investigate these relationships in patients.

Dynamic interactions between lumbar intervertebral motion segments during forward bending and return.

Continuous dynamic multi-segmental studies of lumbar motion have added depth to our understanding of the biomechanics of back pain, but few have attempted to continuously measure the proportions of motion accepted by individual levels. This study attempted to compare the motion contributions of adjacent lumbar levels during an active weight bearing flexion and return protocol in chronic, non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) patients and controls using quantitative fluoroscopy (QF). Eight CNSLBP patients received QF during guided standing lumbar flexion. Dynamic motion sharing of segments from L2 to S1 were calculated and analysed for interactions between levels. Eight asymptomatic controls were then matched to the 8 patients for age and sex and their motion sharing patterns compared. Share of intersegmental motion was found to be consistently highest at L2-L3 and L3-L4 and lowest at L5-S1 throughout the motion in both groups, with the exception of maximum flexion where L4-L5 received the greatest share. Change in motion sharing occurred throughout the flexion and return motion paths in both participant groups but tended to vary more at L4-L5 in patients (p < 0.05). In patients, L5-S1 provided less angular range (p < 0.05) and contributed less at maximum bend (p < 0.05), while L3-L4, on average over the bending sequence, provided a greater share of motion (p < 0.05). Intervertebral motion sharing inequality is therefore a normal feature during lumbar flexion. However, in patients, inequality was more pronounced, and variability of motion share at some levels increased. These effects may result from differences in muscular contraction or in the mechanical properties of the disc.

Comparison of intra subject repeatability of quantitative fluoroscopy and static radiography in the measurement of lumbar intervertebral flexion translation.

Low back pain patients are sometimes offered fusion surgery if intervertebral translation, measured from static, end of range radiographs exceeds 3 mm. However, it is essential to know the measurement error of such methods, if selection for back surgery is going to be informed by them. Fifty-five healthy male (34) and female (21) pain free participants aged 21-80 years received quantitative fluoroscopic (QF) imaging both actively during standing and passively in the lateral decubitus position. The following five imaging protocols were extracted from 2 motion examinations, which were repeated 6 weeks apart: 1. Static during upright free bending. 2. Maximum during controlled upright bending, 3. At the end of controlled upright bending, 4. Maximum during controlled recumbent bending, 5. At the end of controlled recumbent bending. Intervertebral flexion translations from L2-S1 were determined for each protocol and their measurement errors (intra subject repeatability) calculated. Estimations using static, free bending radiographic images gave measurement errors of up to 4 mm, which was approximately twice that of the QF protocols. Significantly higher ranges at L4-5 and L5-S1 were obtained from the static protocol compared with the QF protocols. Weight bearing ranges at these levels were also significantly higher in males regardless of the protocol. Clinical decisions based on sagittal translations of less than 4 mm would therefore require QF imaging.

Can Biomechanics Research Lead to More Effective Treatment of Low Back Pain? A Point-Counterpoint Debate.

SYNOPSIS: Although biomechanics plays a role in the development and perhaps the persistent or recurrent nature of low back pain (LBP), whether biomechanics alone can provide the basis for intervention is debated. Biomechanics, which refers to the mechanics of the body, including its neuromuscular control, has been studied extensively in LBP. But, can gains be made in understanding LBP by research focused on this component of biology in the multifactorial biopsychosocial problem of LBP? This commentary considers whether biomechanics research has the potential to advance treatment of LBP, and how likely it is that this research will lead to better treatment strategies. A point-counterpoint format is taken to present both sides of the argument. First, the challenges faced by an approach that considers biomechanics in isolation are presented. Next, we describe 3 models that place substantial emphasis on biomechanical factors. Finally, reactions to each point are presented as a foundation for further research and clinical practice to progress understanding of the place for biomechanics in guiding treatment of LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):425-436. Epub 15 May 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8825.

Intrasubject repeatability of in vivo intervertebral motion parameters using quantitative fluoroscopy.

PURPOSE: In vivo quantification of intervertebral motion through imaging has progressed to a point where biomarkers for low back pain are emerging. This makes possible deeper study of the condition's biometrics. However, the measurement of change over time involves error. The purpose of this prospective investigation is to determine the intrasubject repeatability of six in vivo intervertebral motion parameters using quantitative fluoroscopy. METHODS: Intrasubject reliability (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC) of baseline to 6-week follow-up measurements were calculated for six lumbar spine intervertebral motion parameters in 109 healthy volunteers. A standardised quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) protocol was used to provide measurements in the coronal and sagittal planes using both passive recumbent and active weight-bearing motion. Parameters were: intervertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), laxity, motion sharing inequality (MSI), motion sharing variability (MSV), flexion translation and anterior disc height change during flexion. RESULTS: The best overall intrasubject reliability (ICC) and agreement (MDC) were for disc height (ICC 0.89, MDC 43%) and IV-RoM (ICC 0.96, MDC 60%), and the worst for MSV (ICC 0.04, MDC 408%). Laxity, MSI and translation had acceptable reliability (most ICCs > 0.60), but not agreement (MDC > 85%). CONCLUSION: Disc height and IV-RoM measurement using QF could be considered for randomised trials, while laxity, MSI and translation could be considered for moderators, correlates or mediators of patient-reported outcomes. MSV had both poor reliability and agreement over 6 weeks. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Relationships between muscle electrical activity and the control of inter-vertebral motion during a forward bending task.

Muscle strengthening exercises are commonly used in primary care for the treatment of chronic, non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) as it has been theorised that increased muscle activity contributes to the stabilisation of inter-vertebral motion segments during bending and other spinal movements, however this has never been demonstrated in vivo. This study used contemporaneous quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) and surface electromyography (sEMG) to investigate relationships between continuous inter-vertebral motion variables and muscle electrical activity in the lumbar multifidus (LMU), lumbar and thoracic erector spinae (LES and TES) during standardised lumbar flexion and return in 18 healthy male human subjects. Our results demonstrated that the variability in the sharing of angular motion (i.e. Motion Share Variability MSV) and motion segment laxity during a bending task were significantly (p < 0.05) negatively correlated (Spearman) with muscle electrical activity throughout the participant bend for both locally and globally acting muscle groups. MSV was also strongly correlated with L2-3 laxity. The former suggests a damping mechanism reducing irregular displacements (i.e. less variability in the sharing of segmental motion) during bending and an action of spinal stabilisation by muscles at segmental levels, and the latter a synergy between laxity at L2-3 and MSV. While this has previously been theorised, it has never been shown in vivo at the inter-vertebral level. These assessments may be considered for use in validation studies of exercise programs for CNSLBP, however further replication is required.

Aberrant intervertebral motion in patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison.

PURPOSE: Intervertebral kinematic assessments have been used to investigate mechanical causes when back pain is resistant to treatment, and recent studies have identified intervertebral motion markers that discriminate patients from controls. However, such patients are a heterogeneous group, some of whom have structural disruption, but the effects of this on intervertebral kinematics are unknown. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with treatment-resistant back pain referred for quantitative fluoroscopy were matched to an equal number of pain-free controls for age and sex. All received passive recumbent flexion assessments for intervertebral motion sharing inequality (MSI), variability (MSV), laxity and translation. Comparisons were made between patient subgroups, between patients and controls and against normative levels from a separate group of controls. RESULTS: Eleven patients had had surgical or interventional procedures, and ten had spondylolisthesis or pars defects. Sixteen had no disruption. Patients had significantly higher median MSI values (0.30) than controls (0.27, p = 0.010), but not MSV (patients 0.08 vs controls 0.08, p = 0.791). Patients who received invasive procedures had higher median MSI values (0.37) than those with bony defects (0.30, p = 0.018) or no disruption (0.28, p = 0.0007). Laxity and translation above reference limits were not more prevalent in patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific back pain have greater MSI values than controls, especially if the former have received spinal surgery. However, excessive laxity, translation and MSV are not more prevalent in these patients. Thus, MSI should be investigated as a pain mechanism and for its possible value as a prognostic factor and/or target for treatment in larger patient populations. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Estimation of in vivo inter-vertebral loading during motion using fluoroscopic and magnetic resonance image informed finite element models.

Finite element (FE) models driven by medical image data can be used to estimate subject-specific spinal biomechanics. This study aimed to combine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) in subject-specific FE models of upright standing, flexion and extension. Supine MR images of the lumbar spine were acquired from healthy participants using a 0.5 T MR scanner. Nine 3D quasi-static linear FE models of L3 to L5 were created with an elastic nucleus and orthotropic annulus. QF data was acquired from the same participants who performed trunk flexion to 60° and trunk extension to 20°. The displacements and rotations of the vertebrae were calculated and applied to the FE model. Stresses were averaged across the nucleus region and transformed to the disc co-ordinate system (S1 = mediolateral, S2 = anteroposterior, S3 = axial). In upright standing S3 was predicted to be -0.7 ±â€¯0.6 MPa (L3L4) and -0.6 ±â€¯0.5 MPa (L4L5). S3 increased to -2.0 ±â€¯1.3 MPa (L3L4) and -1.2 ±â€¯0.6 MPa (L4L5) in full flexion and to -1.1 ±â€¯0.8 MPa (L3L4) and -0.7 ±â€¯0.5 MPa (L4L5) in full extension. S1 and S2 followed similar patterns; shear was small apart from S23. Disc stresses correlated to disc orientation and wedging. The results demonstrate that MR and QF data can be combined in a participant-specific FE model to investigate spinal biomechanics in vivo and that predicted stresses are within ranges reported in the literature.