MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7019598595

How Cyclical Spinal Flexion and Extension Independently Alter Mechanical Integrity of the Intervertebral Disc

2024· article· en· W7019598595 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCompression (physics)Annulus (botany)Intervertebral discBiomechanicsStructural integrityTension (geology)Spinal column
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction:\nIntervertebral disc (IVD) herniation is a cause of low back pain and creates significant health care and financial burden in Canada. It has been observed that with moderate compression, combined cyclical flexion and extension are sufficient to cause herniation in functional spinal units (Callaghan & McGill, 2001). Furthermore, it has been observed that combined cyclical flexion and extension leads to more damage to the posterior annulus fibrosus (AF) when compared to cyclical flexion alone, quantified by increased nuclear migration (Balkovec & McGill, 2012). A recent study by Briar & Gregory (2023) found that static flexion negatively influenced the adhesion strength of the interlamellar matrix of the AF, regardless of sample location. It has been shown that when flexing an IVD, the anterior annulus fibrosus is compressed. This compression creates an increase in intradiscal pressure (Ekström et al., 2004), and the increased pressure applies tension to the posterior AF. It is hypothesized that the increased damage seen in combined flexion/extension loading protocols is due to the alternation of tension and compression on the AF.\nAims:\n The aim of this study was to investigate how cyclical flexion and extension of a functional spinal unit independently influences the adhesive properties of the interlamellar matrix.\nMethodology:\n Cervical porcine spines were used; specifically, the C3/4 and C5/6 were excised from the cervical spines and placed into one of three experimental conditions: 1) cyclical spinal flexion, 2) cyclical spinal extension, and 3) static compression. All groups experienced 900N of compressive load for 6000 cycles at 1hz. Following mechanical loading, the intervertebral disc was dissected out and multi-layer samples of both the posterior and anterior AF were extracted. The multi-layer samples were loaded onto a UStretch device (Cellscale Inc., Ontario, Canada) and underwent a 180° peel test to determine the adhesion properties of the Interlamellar matrix. Full height samples of the AF, approximately 2-4 layers in width were tested using a standardized bilayer protocol in a Biotester 5000 (Cellscale Inc., Ontario, Canada). These “bilayers” are thought to holistically quantify tensile properties of the AF. The outcome measures were compared using two-way mixed model ANOVAs with the within factor being location (anterior, posterior; repeated), and the between factor being loading condition (flexion, extension, control; non-repeated).\nResults:\n The results of this experiment suggest that isolated cyclical flexion and isolated cyclical extension do not significantly influence the mechanical properties of the annulus fibrosus when compared to static compression alone. There were no significant main effects or interactions observed for any of the bilayer tests. Two significant findings were observed in the 180° peel tests. A main effect of location was observed for peel strength and peel stiffness. The anterior average peel stiffness (M=0.92 N/mm2) was significantly (p=0.028) lower than the average posterior peel stiffness M=1.21 N/mm2. Likewise, the anterior average peel strength (M=2.24 N/mm) was significantly (p=0.028) weaker than the posterior average peel strength(M=3.09 N/mm). While there were no significant main effects of loading for any of the outcome measures, there was a trend for peel stiffness. This trend supports the concept of compression having a detrimental impact on peel stiffness.\nDiscussion/Conclusion:\nThe findings of the current study suggest that isolated cyclical flexion and isolated cyclical extension of functional spinal units do not appear to mechanically compromise them when compared to a statically compressed control. However, a trend present for peel stiffness appears to provide evidence for compression being more detrimental to interlamellar adhesive properties when compared to tension. This was indicated by decreased anterior peel stiffness for the cyclical flexion group when compared to the control, and posterior peel stiffness being decreased in the cyclical extension group when compared to the control. A novel finding of the current experiment was the effect of location, with the posterior peel strength and stiffness being significantly (p<0.05) stronger than the anterior peel stiffness and strength. This novel finding is incongruent with previous literature, which in many instances provides evidence of the anterior annulus being stronger than the posterior annulus (Tavakoli et al., 2018; Gregory et al., 2014; Tsuji et al., 1993). However, given the torque-controlled loading parameters, and the effects of the posterior elements shielding the posterior AF from applied compression, these results make sense and provide further support for compression having a more detrimental effect on interlamellar adhesive properties.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,273
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)→Même sujetSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→Travaux en français237 207→