Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative evaluation of different spinal stability metrics.
Eskandari, Amir Hossein; Ghezelbash, Farshid; Shirazi-Adl, Aboulfazl; Larivière, Christian.
Afiliação
  • Eskandari AH; Institut de recherche Robert Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Montréal, Canada; Division of Applied Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Canada. Electronic address: larchr@irsst.qc.ca.
  • Ghezelbash F; Division of Applied Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Canada.
  • Shirazi-Adl A; Division of Applied Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Canada.
  • Larivière C; Institut de recherche Robert Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Montréal, Canada; Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal (CRIR), Institut universitaire sur la réadaptation en déficience physique de Montréal (IURDPM), Centre intégré universitaire de santé e
J Biomech ; 162: 111901, 2024 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38160088
ABSTRACT
Direct in vivo measurements of spinal stability are not possible, leaving computational estimations (such as dynamic time series and structural analyses) as the feasible option. However, differences between different stability assessment approaches and metrics remain unclear. To explore this, we asked 32 participants to perform 35 cycles of repetitive lifts with and without load (4/2.6 kg for males/females). EMG signals and 3D kinematics were collected via 12 surface electrodes and 17 inertial sensors, and three dynamical stability measures were computed short and long temporal and conventional maximum Lyapunov exponents (LyE) and maximum Floquet multipliers (FM). A dynamic subject-specific EMG-assisted musculoskeletal model computed four structural stability measures (critical muscle stiffness coefficient at which spine becomes unstable, average spine stiffness, minimum and geometric average of Hessian matrix eigenvalues). Across cycles, dynamical and structural stability outcomes varied noticeably. Temporal short-term LyE and all structural stability measures were more influenced by the cycle percentage (posture factor) than by phase (lifting, lowering) or load factor. The effect of all factors were non-significant for FM and long LyE, except for the posture on LyE-L with a small effect size. Pearson's correlations revealed a weak to moderate, or non-existent, correlation between structural and dynamical stability metrics, with small shared variances, underscoring their distinct and independent nature and theoretical foundations. Moreover, the low sensitivity of dynamic measures to posture and load factors, found in this study, calls for further examination. Considering the limitations and shortcomings of both dynamical and structural stability assessment approaches, there is a need for the development of improved musculoskeletal stability evaluation techniques.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Lixívia Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Lixívia Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article