Can extra-articular strains be used to measure facet contact forces in the lumbar spine? An <i>in-vitro</i> biomechanical study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Experimental measurement of the load-bearing patterns of the facet joints in the lumbar spine remains a challenge, thereby limiting the assessment of facet joint function under various surgical conditions and the validation of computational models. The extra-articular strain (EAS) technique, a non-invasive measurement of the contact load, has been used for unilateral facet joints but does not incorporate strain coupling, i.e. ipsilateral EASs due to forces on the contralateral facet joint. The objectives of the present study were to establish a bilateral model for facet contact force measurement using the EAS technique and to determine its effectiveness in measuring these facet joint contact forces during three-dimensional flexibility tests in the lumbar spine. Specific goals were to assess the accuracy and repeatability of the technique and to assess the effect of soft-tissue artefacts. In the accuracy and repeatability tests, ten uniaxial strain gauges were bonded to the external surface of the inferior facets of L3 of ten fresh lumbar spine specimens. Two pressure-sensitive sensors (Tekscan) were inserted into the joints after the capsules were cut. Facet contact forces were measured with the EAS and Tekscan techniques for each specimen in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending under a +/- 7.5 N m pure moment. Four of the ten specimens were tested five times in axial rotation and extension for repeatability. These same specimens were disarticulated and known forces were applied across the facet joint using a manual probe (direct accuracy) and a materials-testing system (disarticulated accuracy). In soft-tissue artefact tests, a separate set of six lumbar spine specimens was used to document the virtual facet joint contact forces during a flexibility test following removal of the superior facet processes. Linear strain coupling was observed in all specimens. The average peak facet joint contact forces during flexibility testing was greatest in axial rotation (71 +/- 25 N), followed by extension (27 +/- 35 N) and lateral bending (25 +/- 28 N), and they were most repeatable in axial rotation (coefficient of variation, 5 per cent). The EAS accuracy was about 20 per cent in the direct accuracy assessment and about 30 per cent in the disarticulated accuracy test. The latter was very similar to the Tekscan accuracy in the same test. Virtual facet loads (r.m.s.) were small in axial rotation (12 N) and lateral bending (20 N), but relatively large in flexion (34 N) and extension (35 N). The results suggested that the bilateral EAS model could be used to determine the facet joint contact forces in axial rotation but may result in considerable error in flexion, extension, and lateral bending.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».