Musculoskeletal biomechanics of patients with or without adjacent segment degeneration after spinal fusion

Study design A retrospective, single center, case-control study was performed. Objective The present study employed patient-specific biomechanical modeling to find potential biomechanical differences after spinal fusion at L4/5 in patients with and without subsequent development of adjacent segment disease (ASD). Methods The study population comprised patients who underwent primary spinal fusion at L4/5 and were either asymptomatic during > 4 years of follow-up (CTRL; n = 18) or underwent revision surgery for ASD at L3/4 (n = 20). Landmarks were annotated on preoperative and follow-up lateral radiographs, and specific musculoskeletal models were created using a custom-built modeling pipeline. Simulated spinal muscle activation and lumbar intervertebral shear loads in unfused segments were analyzed in upright standing and forward flexion. Differences between the pre- and postoperative conditions were computed for each patient. Results The average postoperative muscle activity in the upright standing posture was 88.4% of the preoperative activity in the CTRL group (p < 0.0001), but did not significantly change from pre- to postoperatively in the ASD group (98.0%). The average shear load magnitude at the epifusional joint L3/4 during upright standing increased from pre- to postoperatively in the ASD group (+ 3.9 N, +/− 17.4 (n = 18)), but decreased in the CTRL group (− 4.6 N, +/− 23.3 (n = 20); p < 0.001). Conclusion Patient-specific biomechanical simulation revealed that spinal fusion surgery resulted in greater shear load magnitude and muscle activation and therefore greater forces at the epifusional segment in those with ASD compared with those without ASD. This is a first report of patient-specific disc load and muscle force calculation with predictive merits for ASD.

Radiographic comparison of lordotic and hyperlordotic implants in L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) used at the lumbosacral junction provides arthrodesis for several indications. The anterior approach allows restoration of lumbar lordosis, an important goal of surgery. With hyperlordotic ALIF implants, several options may be employed to obtain the desired amount of lordosis. In this study, the authors compared the degree of radiographic lordosis achieved with lordotic and hyperlordotic ALIF implants at the L5–S1 segment. METHODS All patients undergoing L5–S1 ALIF from 2 institutions over a 4-year interval were included. Patients < 18 years of age or those with any posterior decompression or osteotomy were excluded. ALIF implants in the lordotic group had 8° or 12° of inherent lordosis, whereas implants in the hyperlordotic group had 20° or 30° of lordosis. Upright standing radiographs were used to determine all radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, disc space lordosis, and disc space height. Separate analyses were performed for patients who underwent single-segment fixation at L5–S1 and for the overall cohort. RESULTS A total of 204 patients were included (hyperlordotic group, 93 [45.6%]; lordotic group, 111 [54.4%]). Single-segment ALIF at L5–S1 was performed in 74 patients (hyperlordotic group, 27 [36.5%]; lordotic group, 47 [63.5%]). The overall mean ± SD age was 61.9 ± 12.3 years; 58.3% of patients (n = 119) were women. The mean number of total segments fused was 3.2 ± 2.6. Overall, 66.7% (n = 136) of patients had supine surgery and 33.3% (n = 68) had lateral surgery. Supine positioning was significantly more common in the hyperlordotic group than in the lordotic group (83.9% [78/93] vs 52.3% [58/111], p < 0.001). After adjusting for differences in surgical positioning, the change in lumbar lordosis was significantly greater for hyperlordotic versus lordotic implants (3.6° ± 7.5° vs 0.4° ± 7.5°, p = 0.048) in patients with single-level fusion. For patients receiving hyperlordotic versus lordotic implants, changes were also significantly greater for segmental lordosis (12.4° ± 7.5° vs 8.4° ± 4.9°, p = 0.03) and disc space lordosis (15.3° ± 5.4° vs 9.3° ± 5.8°, p < 0.001) after single-level fusion at L5–S1. The change in disc space height was similar for these 2 groups (p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS Hyperlordotic implants provided a greater degree of overall lumbar lordosis restoration as well as L5–S1 segmental and disc space lordosis restoration than lordotic implants. The change in disc space height was similar. Differences in lateral and supine positioning did not affect these parameters.

Three-dimensional evaluation of the coccyx movement between supine and standing positions using conventional and upright computed tomography imaging

Currently, no three-dimensional reference data exist for the normal coccyx in the standing position on computed tomography (CT); however, this information could have utility for evaluating patients with coccydynia and pelvic floor dysfunction. Thus, we aimed to compare coccygeal parameters in the standing versus supine positions using upright and supine CT and evaluate the effects of sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) on coccygeal movement. Thirty-two healthy volunteers underwent both upright (standing position) and conventional (supine position) CT examinations. In the standing position, the coccyx became significantly longer and straighter, with the tip of the coccyx moving backward and downward (all p < 0.001). Additionally, the coccygeal straight length (standing/supine, 37.8 ± 7.1/35.7 ± 7.0 mm) and sacrococcygeal straight length (standing/supine, 131.7 ± 11.2/125.0 ± 10.7 mm) were significantly longer in the standing position. The sacrococcygeal angle (standing/supine, 115.0 ± 10.6/105.0 ± 12.5°) was significantly larger, while the lumbosacral angle (standing/supine, 21.1 ± 5.9/25.0 ± 4.9°) was significantly smaller. The migration length of the tip of the coccyx (mean, 7.9 mm) exhibited a moderate correlation with BMI (r = 0.42, p = 0.0163). Our results may provide important clues regarding the pathogenesis of coccydynia and pelvic floor dysfunction.

Short-term effect of kinesiology taping on pain, functional disability and lumbar proprioception in individuals with nonspecific chronic low back pain: a double-blinded, randomized trial

Background This study aimed to evaluate the effect of kinesiology taping (KT) on lumbar proprioception, pain, and functional disability in individuals with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods Thirty individuals with nonspecific CLBP participated in this double-blinded, randomized clinical trial from July 2017 to September 2018. The participants were randomized into two groups: KT (n = 15) and placebo group (n = 15). KT was applied with 15–25% tension for 72 h, and placebo taping was used without tension. Lumbar repositioning error was measured by a bubble inclinometer at three different angles (45° and 60° flexion, and 15° extension) in upright standing. Pain and disability were assessed by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index, respectively. All measurements were recorded at baseline and 3 days after taping. Results Pain and disability scores reduced 3 days after taping in the KT group with large effect sizes (p < 0.05). Only the total score of pain was significantly different between the groups 3 days after taping and improved more in the KT group with a large effect size (p < 0.05). However, lumbar repositioning errors were similar between the groups after 3 days (p > 0.05). Also, only constant error of 15° extension showed a moderate correlation with disability (r = 0.39, p = 0.02). Conclusion KT can decrease pain and disability scores after 3 days of application. Although placebo taping can reduce pain, the effect of KT is higher than placebo taping. The findings do not support the therapeutic effect of KT and placebo taping as a tool to enhance lumbar proprioception in patients with nonspecific CLBP. Trial registration The study prospectively registered on 21.05.2018 at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials: IRCT20090301001722N20.

Effects of Cognitive Over Postural Demands on Upright Standing Among Young Adults

A growing body of research has shown that static stance control (e.g., body sway) is influenced by cognitive demands (CD), an effect that may be related to competition for limited central resources. Measures of stance control have also been impacted by postural demands (PD) (e.g., stable vs. unstable stances). However, less is known of any possible interactions between PD and CD on static stance control in populations with intact balance control and ample cognitive resources, like young healthy adults. In this study, among the same participants, we factorially compared the impact of PD with and without CD on static stance control. Thirty-four healthy young adults wore inertial measurement units (IMU) while completing static stance tasks for 30 seconds in three different PD positions: feet apart, feet together, and tandem feet. After completing these tasks alone, participants performed these tasks with CD by concurrently completing verbal serial seven subtractions from a randomly selected three-digit number. For two dependent measures, path length and jerk, there were main effects of CD and PD but no interaction effect between these factors. For all other stance control parameters, there was only a PD main effect. Thus, adding a cognitive demand to postural demands, while standing upright, may have an independent impact on stance control, but CD does not seem to interact with PD. These results suggest that young healthy adults may be less sensitive to simple PD and CD due to their greater inherent balance control and available cognitive resources. Future work might explore more complex PD and CD combinations to determine the boundaries under which young adults’ resources are taxed.