Altered Spinal Motion in Low Back Pain Associated with Lumbar Strain and Spondylosis

Abstract

Study Design We present a patient-specific computer model created to translate two-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic motion data into three-dimensional (3D) in vivo biomechanical motion data.

Objective The aim of this study is to determine the in vivo biomechanical differences in patients with and without acute low back pain. Current dynamic imaging of the lumbar spine consists of flexion–extension static radiographs, which lack sensitivity to out-of-plane motion and provide incomplete information on the overall spinal motion. Using a novel technique, in-plane and coupled out-of-plane rotational motions are quantified in the lumbar spine.

Methods A total of 30 participants—10 healthy asymptomatic subjects, 10 patients with low back pain without spondylosis radiologically, and 10 patients with low back pain with radiological spondylosis—underwent dynamic fluoroscopy with a 3D-to-2D image registration technique to create a 3D, patient-specific bone model to analyze in vivo kinematics using the maximal absolute rotational magnitude and the path of rotation.

Results Average overall in-plane rotations (L1–L5) in patients with low back pain were less than those asymptomatic, with the dominant loss of motion during extension. Those with low back pain also had significantly greater out-of-plane rotations, with 5.5 degrees (without spondylosis) and 7.1 degrees (with spondylosis) more out-of-plane rotational motion per level compared with asymptomatic subjects.

Conclusions Subjects with low back pain exhibited greater out-of-plane intersegmental motion in their lumbar spine than healthy asymptomatic subjects. Conventional flexion–extension radiographs are inadequate for evaluating motion patterns of lumbar strain, and assessment of 3D in vivo spinal motion may elucidate the association of abnormal vertebral motions and clinically significant low back pain.

Keywords

low back pain - lumbar strain - spondylosis - biomechanics - kinematics

• References

• 1 Cholewicki J, McGill SM, Wells RP, Vernon H. Method for measuring vertebral kinematics from videofluoroscopy. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1991; 6 (2) 73-78
• 2 Dickey JP, Pierrynowski MR, Bednar DA, Yang SX. Relationship between pain and vertebral motion in chronic low-back pain subjects. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2002; 17 (5) 345-352
• 3 Dvorák J, Panjabi MM, Chang DG, Theiler R, Grob D. Functional radiographic diagnosis of the lumbar spine. Flexion-extension and lateral bending. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991; 16 (5) 562-571
• 4 Dvorák J, Panjabi MM, Novotny JE, Chang DG, Grob D. Clinical validation of functional flexion-extension roentgenograms of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991; 16 (8) 943-950
• 5 Harada M, Abumi K, Ito M, Kaneda K. Cineradiographic motion analysis of normal lumbar spine during forward and backward flexion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25 (15) 1932-1937
• 6 Li G, Wang S, Passias P, Xia Q, Li G, Wood K. Segmental in vivo vertebral motion during functional human lumbar spine activities. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (7) 1013-1021
• 7 Mahfouz MR, Hoff WA, Komistek RD, Dennis DA. A robust method for registration of three-dimensional knee implant models to two-dimensional fluoroscopy images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003; 22 (12) 1561-1574
• 8 Liu F. Theoretical Modeling and Experimental Validation of In Vivo Mechanics for Subjects Having Variable Cervical Spine Conditions [dissertation]. University of Tennessee. Knoxville, TN: ProQuest/UMI; 2007. (Publication No. AAT Thesis 2007b. L58)
• 9 Pearcy MJ, Tibrewal SB. Axial rotation and lateral bending in the normal lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional radiography. Spine 1984; 9 (6) 582-587
• 10 White III AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1990