Biomedical subjects

Christopher J Colloca

Publications and source records attributed to Christopher J Colloca.

25 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

A rigid body model of the dynamic posteroanterior motion response of the human lumbar spine.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians apply posteroanterior (PA) forces to the spine for both mobility assessment and certain spinal mobilization and manipulation treatments. Commonly applied forces include low-frequency sinusoidal oscillations (<2 Hz) as used in mobilization, single haversine thrusts (<0.5 seconds) as imparted in high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation, or very rapid impulsive thrusts (<5 ms) such as those delivered in mechanical-force, manually-assisted (MFMA) manipulation. Little is known about the mechanics of these procedures. Reliable methods are sought to obtain an adequate understanding of the force-induced displacement response of the lumbar spine to PA forces. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the kinematic response of the lumbar spine to static and dynamic PA forces. DESIGN: A 2-dimensional modal analysis was performed to predict the dynamic motion response of the lumbar spine. METHODS: A 5-degree-of-freedom, lumped equivalent model was developed to predict the PA motion of the lumbar spine. Lumbar vertebrae were modeled as masses, massless-spring, and dampers, and the resulting equations of motion were solved by using a modal analysis approach. The sensitivity of the model to variations in the spring stiffness and damping coefficients was examined, and the model validity was determined by comparing the results to oscillatory and impulsive force measurements of vertebral motion associated with spine mobilization and 2 forms of spinal manipulation. RESULTS: Model predictions, based on a damping ratio of 0.15 (moderate damping) and PA spring stiffness coefficient ranging from 25 to 60 kN/m, showed good agreement with in vivo human studies. Quasi-static and low-frequency (<2.0 Hz) forces at L3 produced L3 segmental and L3-L4 intersegmental displacements up to 8.1 mm and 3.0 mm, respectively. PA oscillatory motions were over 2.5-fold greater for oscillatory forces applied at the natural frequency. Impulsive forces produced much lower segmental displacements in comparison to static and oscillatory forces. Differences in intersegmental displacements resulting from impulsive, static, and oscillatory forces were much less remarkable. The latter suggests that intersegmental motions produced by spinal manipulation may play a prominent role in eliciting therapeutic responses. CONCLUSIONS: The simple analytical model presented in this study can be used to predict the static, cyclic, and impulsive force PA displacement response of the lumbar spine. The model provides data on lumbar segmental and intersegmental motion patterns that are otherwise difficult to obtain experimentally. Modeling of the PA motion response of the lumbar spine to PA forces assists in the understanding the biomechanics of therapeutic PA forces applied to the lumbar spine and may ultimately be used to validate chiropractic technique procedures and minimize risk to patients receiving spinal manipulative therapy.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Neuromechanical characterization of in vivo lumbar spinal manipulation. Part I. Vertebral motion.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify in vivo spinal motions and coupling patterns occurring in human subjects in response to mechanical force, manually assisted, short-lever spinal manipulative thrusts (SMTs) applied to varying vertebral contact points and utilizing various excursion (force) settings. METHODS: Triaxial accelerometers were attached to intraosseous pins rigidly fixed to the L1, L3, or L4 lumbar spinous process of 4 patients (2 male, 2 female) undergoing lumbar decompressive surgery. Lumbar spine acceleration responses were recorded during the application of 14 externally applied posteroanterior (PA) impulsive SMTs (4 force settings and 3 contact points) in each of the 4 subjects. Displacement time responses in the PA, axial (AX), and medial-lateral (ML) axes were obtained, as were intervertebral (L3-4) motion responses in 1 subject. Statistical analysis of the effects of facet joint (FJ) contact point and force magnitude on peak-to-peak displacements was performed. Motion coupling between the 3 coordinate axes of the vertebrae was examined using a least squares linear regression. RESULTS: SMT forces ranged from 30 N (lowest setting) to 150 N (maximum setting). Peak-to-peak ML, PA, and AX vertebral displacements increased significantly with increasing applied force. For thrusts delivered over the FJs, pronounced coupling was observed between all axes (AX-ML, AX-PA, PA-ML) (linear regression, R(2) = 0.35-0.52, P <.001), whereas only the AX and PA axes showed a significant degree of coupling for thrusts delivered to the spinous processes (SPs) (linear regression, R(2) = 0.82, P <.001). The ML and PA motion responses were significantly (P <.05) greater than the AX response for all SMT force settings. PA vertebral displacements decreased significantly (P <.05) when the FJ contact point was caudal to the pin compared with FJ contact cranial to the pin. FJ contact at the level of the pin produced significantly greater ML vertebral displacements in comparison with contact above and below the pin. SMTs over the spinous processes produced significantly (P <.05) greater PA and AX displacements in comparison with ML displacements. The combined ML, PA, and AX peak-to-peak displacements for the 4 force settings and 2 contact points ranged from 0.15 to 0.66 mm, 0.15 to 0.81 mm, and 0.07 to 0.45 mm, respectively. Intervertebral motions were of similar amplitude as the vertebral motions. CONCLUSIONS: In vivo kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine during the application of SMTs over the FJs and SPs corroborate previous spinous process measurements in human subjects. Our findings demonstrate that PA, ML, and AX spinal motions are coupled and dependent on applied force and contact point.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Neuromechanical characterization of in vivo lumbar spinal manipulation. Part II. Neurophysiological response.

OBJECTIVE: To simultaneously quantify vertebral motions and neuromuscular and spinal nerve root responses to mechanical force, manually assisted, short-lever spinal manipulative thrusts. METHODS: Four patients underwent lumbar laminarthrectomy to decompress the central spinal canal and neuroforamina, as clinically indicated. Prior to decompression, finely threaded, 1.8-mm diameter intraosseous pins were rigidly fixed to the lumbar spinous process (L1 or L3) using fluoroscopic guidance, and a high-frequency, low-noise, 10-g, triaxial accelerometer was mounted to the pin. Following decompression, 4 needle electromyographic (nEMG) electrodes were inserted into the multifidus musculature adjacent to the pin mount bilaterally, and 2 bipolar platinum electrodes were cradled around the left and right S1 spinal nerve roots. With the spine exposed, spinal manipulative thrusts were delivered internally to the lumbosacral spinous processes and facet joints and externally by contacting the skin overlying the respective spinal landmarks using 2 force settings ( approximately 30 N, < 5 milliseconds (ms); approximately 150 N, < 5 ms) and 2 force vectors (posteroanterior and superior; posteroanterior and inferior). RESULTS: Spinal manipulative thrusts resulted in positive electromyographic (EMG) and compound action potential (CAP) responses that were typically characterized by a single voltage potential change lasting several milliseconds in duration. However, multiple EMG and CAP discharges were observed in numerous cases. The temporal relationship between the initiation of the mechanical thrust and the neurophysiologic response to internal and external spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) thrusts ranged from 2.4 to 18.1 ms and 2.4 to 28.6 ms for EMG and CAP responses, respectively. Neurophysiologic responses varied substantially between patients. CONCLUSIONS: Vertebral motions and resulting spinal nerve root and neuromuscular reflex responses appear to be temporally related to the applied force during SMT. These findings suggest that intersegmental motions produced by spinal manipulation may play a prominent role in eliciting physiologic responses.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of mechanical force of manually assisted chiropractic adjusting instruments.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the force-time and force-delivery characteristics of six commonly used handheld chiropractic adjusting devices. METHODS: Four spring-loaded instruments, the Activator Adjusting Instrument; Activator II Adjusting Instrument, Activator III Adjusting Instrument, and Activator IV Adjusting Instrument, and two electromechanical devices, the Harrison Handheld Adjusting Instrument and Neuromechanical Impulse Adjusting Instrument, were applied to a dynamic load cell. A total of 10 force-time histories were obtained at each of three force excursion settings (minimum to maximum) for each of the six adjusting instruments at preload of approximately 20 N. RESULTS: The minimum-to-maximum force excursion settings for the spring-loaded mechanical adjusting instruments produced similar minimum-to-maximum peak forces that were not appreciably different for most excursion settings. The electromechanical adjusting instruments produced short duration ( approximately 2-4 ms), with more linear minimum-to-maximum peak forces. The force-time profile of the electromechanical devices resulted in a more uniform and greater energy dynamic frequency response in comparison to the spring-loaded mechanical adjusting instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The handheld, electromechanical instruments produced substantially larger peak forces and ranges of forces in comparison to the handheld, spring-loaded mechanical devices. The electromechanical instruments produced greater dynamic frequency area ratios than their mechanical counterparts. Knowledge of the force-time history and force-frequency response characteristics of spinal manipulative instruments may provide basic benchmarks and may assist in understanding mechanical responses in the clinical setting.

Benchmarking↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Three-dimensional vertebral motions produced by mechanical force spinal manipulation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the 3-dimensional intersegmental motion responses produced by 3 commonly used chiropractic adjusting instruments. METHODS: Six adolescent Merino sheep were examined at the Institute for Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, Australia. In all animals, triaxial accelerometers were attached to intraosseous pins rigidly fixed to the L1 and L2 spinous processes under fluoroscopic guidance. Three handheld mechanical force chiropractic adjusting instruments (Chiropractic Adjusting Tool [CAT], Activator Adjusting Instrument IV [Activator IV], and the Impulse Adjusting Instrument [Impulse]) were used to randomly apply posteroanterior (PA) spinal manipulative thrusts to the spinous process of T12. Three force settings (low, medium, and high) and a fourth setting (Activator IV only) were applied in a randomized repeated measures design. Acceleration responses in adjacent segments (L1 and L2) were recorded at 5 kHz. The multiaxial intersegmental (L1-L2) acceleration and displacement response at each force setting was computed and compared among the 3 devices using a repeated measures analysis of variance (alpha = .05). RESULTS: For all devices, intersegmental motion responses were greatest for axial, followed by PA and medial-lateral (ML) measurement axes for the data examined. Displacements ranged from 0.11 mm (ML axis, Activator IV low setting) to 1.76 mm (PA axis, Impulse high setting). Compared with the mechanical (spring) adjusting instruments (CAT, Activator IV), the electromechanical Impulse produced the most linear increase in both force and intersegmental motion response and resulted in the greatest acceleration and displacement responses (high setting). Significantly larger magnitude intersegmental motion responses were observed for Activator IV vs CAT at the medium and high settings (P < .05). Significantly larger-magnitude PA intersegmental acceleration and displacement responses were consistently observed for Impulse compared with Activator IV and CAT for the high force setting (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Larger-magnitude, 3D intersegmental displacement and acceleration responses were observed for spinal manipulative thrusts delivered with Impulse at most force settings and always at the high force setting. Our results indicate that the force-time characteristics of impulsive-type adjusting instruments significantly affects spinal motion and suggests that instruments can and should be tuned to provide optimal force delivery.

Acceleration↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Influence of spine morphology on intervertebral disc loads and stresses in asymptomatic adults: implications for the ideal spine.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Sagittal profiles of the spine have been hypothesized to influence spinal coupling and loads on spinal tissues. PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between thoracolumbar spine sagittal morphology and intervertebral disc loads and stresses. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study evaluating sagittal X-ray geometry and postural loading in asymptomatic men and women. PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty-seven young and asymptomatic subjects (chiropractic students) formed the study group. OUTCOME MEASURES: Morphological data derived from radiographs (anatomic angles and sagittal balance parameters) and biomechanical parameters (intervertebral disc loads and stresses) derived from a postural loading model. METHODS: An anatomically accurate, sagittal plane, upright posture, quadrilateral element model of the anterior spinal column (C2-S1) was created by digitizing lateral full-spine X-rays of 67 human subjects (51 males, 16 females). Morphological measurements of sagittal curvature and balance were compared with intervertebral disc loads and stresses obtained using a quadrilateral element postural loading model. RESULTS: In this young (mean 26.7, SD 4.8 years), asymptomatic male and female population, the neutral posture spine was characterized by an average thoracic angle (T1-T12) = +43.7 degrees (SD 11.4 degrees ), lumbar angle (T12-S1) = -63.2 degrees (SD 10.0 degrees ), and pelvic angle = +49.4 degrees (SD 9.9 degrees ). Sagittal curvatures exhibited relatively broad frequency distributions, with the pelvic angle showing the least variance and the thoracic angle showing the greatest variance. Sagittal balance parameters, C7-S1 and T1-T12, showed the best average vertical alignment (5.3 mm and -0.04 mm, respectively). Anterior and posterior disc postural loads were balanced at T8-T9 and showed the greatest difference at L5-S1. Disc compressive stresses were greatest in the mid-thoracic region of the spine, whereas shear stresses were highest at L5-S1. Significant linear correlations (p < .001) were found between a number of biomechanical and morphological parameters. Notably, thoracic shear stresses and compressive stresses were correlated to T1-T12 and T4-hip axis (HA) sagittal balance, respectively, but not to sagittal angles. Lumbar shear stresses and body weight (BW) normalized shear loads were correlated with T12-S1 balance, lumbar angle, and sacral angle. BW normalized lumbar compressive loads were correlated with T12-S1 balance and sacral angle. BW normalized lumbar disc shear (compressive) loads increased (decreased) significantly with decreasing lumbar lordosis. Cervical compressive stresses and loads were correlated with all sagittal balance parameters except S1-HA and T12-S1. A neutral spine sagittal model was constructed from the 67 subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses suggest that sagittal spine balance and curvature are important parameters for postural load balance in healthy male and female subjects. Morphological predictors of altered disc load outcomes were sagittal balance parameters in the thoracic spine and anatomic angles in the lumbar spine.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Increasing the cervical lordosis with chiropractic biophysics seated combined extension-compression and transverse load cervical traction with cervical manipulation: nonrandomized clinical control trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical lordosis has been shown to be an important outcome of care; however, few conservative methods of rehabilitating sagittal cervical alignment have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To study whether a seated, retracted, extended, and compressed position would cause tension in the anterior cervical ligament, anterior disk, and muscle structures, and thereby restore cervical lordosis or increase the curvature in patients with loss of the cervical lordosis. STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized, prospective, clinical control trial. METHODS: Thirty preselected patients, after diagnostic screening for tolerance to cervical extension with compression, were treated for the first 3 weeks of care using cervical manipulation and a new type of cervical extension-compression traction (vertical weight applied to the subject's forehead in the sitting position with a transverse load at the area of kyphosis). Pretreatment and posttreatment Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain ratings were compared along with pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cervical radiographs analyzed with the posterior tangent method for changes in alignment. Results are compared to a control group of 33 subjects receiving no treatment and matched for age, sex, weight, height, and pain. RESULTS: Control subjects reported no change in VAS pain ratings and had no statistical significant change in segmental or global cervical alignment on comparative lateral cervical radiographs (difference in all angle mean values < 1.3 degrees ) repeated an average of 8.5 months later. For the traction group, VAS ratings were 4.1 pretreatment and 1.1 posttreatment. On comparative lateral cervical radiographs repeated after an average of 38 visits over 14.6 weeks, 10 angles and 2 distances showed statistically significant improvements, including anterior head weight bearing (mean improvement of 11 mm), Cobb angle at C2-C7 (mean improvement of -13.6 degrees ), and the angle of intersection of the posterior tangents at C2-C7 (mean improvement of 17.9 degrees ). Twenty-one (70%) of the treatment group subjects were followed for an additional 14 months; improvements in cervical lordosis and anterior weight bearing were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic biophysics (CBP) technique's extension-compression 2-way cervical traction combined with spinal manipulation decreased chronic neck pain intensity and improved cervical lordosis in 38 visits over 14.6 weeks, as indicated by increases in segmental and global cervical alignment. Anterior head weight-bearing was reduced by 11 mm; Cobb angles averaged an increase of 13 degrees to 14 degrees; and the angle of intersection of posterior tangents on C2 and C7 averaged 17.9 degrees of improvement.

Adult↗