Biomedical subjects

F Graichen

Publications and source records attributed to F Graichen.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Comparison of intradiscal pressures and spinal fixator loads for different body positions and exercises.

Loading of the spine is still not well understood. The most reliable results seemed to come from the intradiscal pressure measurements from studies by Nachemson, 1966. A new similar study by Wilke et al. (1999) complemented the present study and confirmed some of the earlier data, although it contradicted others. The new data did not confirm that the load on the spine is higher in sitting compared with standing and did not find distinct differences between positions in which subjects were lying down. The objective of this paper was to compare results from two independent in vivo studies (applying different methods) to provide information about spinal loading. In one of these studies (Wilke 1999), intradiscal pressure was measured in one volunteer in different postures and exercises, and in the other study (Rohlmann et al. 1994) the loads on an internal spinal fixation device (an implant for stabilising unstable spines) were determined in 10 patients. The absolute values of the results from both studies were normalized and compared for many body positions and dynamic exercises. The relative differences in intradiscal pressure and flexion bending moments in the fixators corresponded in most cases. Both studies showed slightly lower loads for sitting than for standing and comparatively low loads in all lying positions. High loads were measured for jogging, jumping on a trampoline and skipping. Differences between trends for intradiscal pressure and for flexion bending moments in the fixators were found when the load was predominantly carried by the anterior spinal column, as during flexion of the upper part of the body or when lifting and carrying weights. The combination of the results from these two methods may improve the understanding of the biomechanical behaviour of the lumbar spine and may be used to validate models and theories of spinal loading.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

Is it possible to simulate physiologic loading conditions by applying pure moments? A comparison of in vivo and in vitro load components in an internal fixator.

STUDY DESIGN: Loads acting in an internal fixator measured in vitro under the application of pure moments such as those commonly used for implant testing and basic research were compared with loads measured in 10 patients in vivo. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether these recommended loading conditions are valid by comparing in vivo measurements and those obtained in an in vitro experiment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pure bending moments are often preferred as loading conditions for spinal in vitro testing, either for implant testing or basic research. The advantage of this loading pattern is that the bending moment is uniform along the multisegmental specimen. However, functional loading of the spine by muscles or external loads subjects the spine to a combination of forces and moments. METHODS: In an in vivo experiment, loads acting on an internal spinal fixator in 10 patients were determined before and after anterior interbody fusion during flexion, extension, left and right lateral bending, and left and right axial twisting of the upper body with the patient standing. For comparison, an equivalent in vitro data set was created with 7 human lumbar specimens in which the same type of fixator was used. All specimens were tested under the application of pure bending moments in the three main motion planes in the intact state with fixator, after corpectomy, and with bone graft. RESULTS: Consistent qualitative agreement between in vivo and in vitro measurements for the loads acting in the internal spinal fixator were found for axial rotation and lateral bending. For flexion and extension, reasonable agreement was found only for the intact spines with fixators. After corpectomy and after inserting a bone graft, the median values for axial force and bending moment in the sagittal plane in vitro did not agree with in vivo measurements. An axial preload in the in vitro experiment slightly increased the axial compression force and flexion bending moment in the fixators. CONCLUSIONS: The application of pure moments to intact lumbar spinal specimens in vitro produces forces and moments in implants comparable with loads observed in vivo. During basic research on intact specimens or implant testing involving a removed disc or corpectomy, muscle forces are necessary to simulate realistic conditions.

Humans↗

PubMed2001

Effect of an internal fixator and a bone graft on intersegmental spinal motion and intradiscal pressure in the adjacent regions.

Stabilizing a lumbar spine with an implant alters the mechanical properties of the bridged region. In order to determine whether this procedure is associated with higher loads in the adjacent segments, seven lumbar cadaver spines were mounted in a spine tester and loaded with pure moments of flexion/extension, left and right lateral bending, and left and right axial rotation. The material studied comprised intact lumbar spines, intact spines with bisegmental internal spinal fixators, and postcorpectomy spines both with a graft and fixators and with fixators alone. Intradiscal pressures and intersegmental motion were measured at all levels. In the bridged region, these parameters were strongly affected by an internal fixator. In most cases, the effect was small in the regions above and below the fixators. Highly significant differences in these regions (P<0.01) were far below the interspecimen range. We did not find any case where both intradiscal pressure changes and intersegmental motion showed highly significantly differences in the regions adjacent to the bridged one. Our results suggest that disc degeneration, which is sometimes found at the level directly above and below the fixators, is not caused by mechanical factors.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Frictional heating of total hip implants. Part 1: measurements in patients.

Hip implants heat up due to friction during long lasting, high loading activities like walking. Thermal damage in the surrounding soft and hard tissues and deteriorated lubrication of synovial fluid could contribute to implant loosening. The goal of this study was to determine the implant temperatures in vivo under varying conditions. Temperatures and contact forces in the joints were measured in seven joints of five patients using instrumented prostheses with alumina ceramic heads and telemetry data transmission. The peak temperature in implants with polyethylene cups rose up to 43.1 degrees C after an hour of walking but varied considerably individually. Even higher temperatures at the joints are probable for patients with higher body weight or while jogging. The peak temperature was lower with a ceramic cup, showing the influence of friction in the joint. During cycling the peak temperatures were lower than during walking, proving the effect of force magnitudes on the produced heat. However, no positive correlation was found between force magnitude and maximum temperature during walking. Other individual parameters than just the joint force influence the implant temperatures. Based on the obtained data and the available literature about thermal damage of biological tissues a detrimental effect of friction induced heat on the stability of hip implants cannot be excluded. Because the potential risk for an individual patient cannot be foreseen, the use and improvement of low friction implant materials is important.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

Frictional heating of total hip implants. Part 2: finite element study.

Due to higher friction artificial hip joints warm up more than natural joints during walking and other continuous activities. This could lead to thermal damage in the surrounding tissues and be a reason for long-term implant loosening, an effect which has not yet been investigated. In vivo measurements with instrumented implants showed temperatures inside the prosthetic head up to 43.1 degrees C (Part 1 of this work). Based on the experimental data a finite element model was developed to calculate the temperatures in the tissues surrounding the hip implant to determine whether these tissues can heat up to critical levels. Various parameters were investigated which could account for the variations in the measured temperatures in the patients, including the perfusion rate in tissues, the volume of synovial fluid, and different implant materials. We found that the synovial fluid is most endangered by thermal damage and consequent deterioration of lubricating properties. Implants with a cobalt-chromium head and a polyethylene cup are unfavourable as they can elevate the temperature in the synovia to more than 46 degrees C. With regard to thermal properties stems made from cobalt-chromium alloys are superior to titanium stems, by better conducting heat to the femur and minimizing the synovial fluid temperature. Factors determining the temperatures during walking are insufficiently known or cannot be determined in the individual patient. Therefore, the risk of a thermally induced implant loosening cannot currently be estimated. Under unfavourable conditions such a risk exists, however. General improvements of implant materials and clinical studies on the possibility of implant loosening due to high temperatures are therefore required.

Alloys↗

PubMed2001

Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities.

In vivo loads acting at the hip joint have so far only been measured in few patients and without detailed documentation of gait data. Such information is required to test and improve wear, strength and fixation stability of hip implants. Measurements of hip contact forces with instrumented implants and synchronous analyses of gait patterns and ground reaction forces were performed in four patients during the most frequent activities of daily living. From the individual data sets an average was calculated. The paper focuses on the loading of the femoral implant component but complete data are additionally stored on an associated compact disc. It contains complete gait and hip contact force data as well as calculated muscle activities during walking and stair climbing and the frequencies of daily activities observed in hip patients. The mechanical loading and function of the hip joint and proximal femur is thereby completely documented. The average patient loaded his hip joint with 238% BW (percent of body weight) when walking at about 4 km/h and with slightly less when standing on one leg. This is below the levels previously reported for two other patients (Bergmann et al., Clinical Biomechanics 26 (1993) 969-990). When climbing upstairs the joint contact force is 251% BW which is less than 260% BW when going downstairs. Inwards torsion of the implant is probably critical for the stem fixation. On average it is 23% larger when going upstairs than during normal level walking. The inter- and intra-individual variations during stair climbing are large and the highest torque values are 83% larger than during normal walking. Because the hip joint loading during all other common activities of most hip patients are comparably small (except during stumbling), implants should mainly be tested with loading conditions that mimic walking and stair climbing.

Activities of Daily Living↗

PubMed2001

Loads on an internal spinal fixation device during sitting.

Sitting is often assumed to involve high loads on the spine as well as on implants for stabilising the spine. Loads on internal spinal fixation devices were therefore measured in ten patients sitting on several types of seats, including a stool, a stool with a padded wedge, a chair, a physiotherapy ball, a knee-stool, and a bench. The patients also successively sat relaxed and erect on a stool. In addition, six of them sat on a special chair allowing different inclinations of the backrest. Implant loads were also measured for standing up and sitting down. There were only minor differences in fixator loads for sitting on the different types of seats. Sitting erect caused an average of 11% higher implant loads than sitting relaxed. Implant loads decreased with increasing inclination of the upper body while sitting on a chair with an adjustable backrest. Implant loads were about 27% higher for standing up and sitting down than for sitting.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

2000 Volvo Award winner in biomechanical studies: Monitoring in vivo implant loads with a telemeterized internal spinal fixation device.

STUDY DESIGN: Implant loads were measured in 10 patients using telemeterized internal spinal fixation devices. OBJECTIVE: To determine the postoperative temporal course of implant loads. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little information exists regarding the temporal course of loads on internal spinal fixation devices. METHODS: The telemeterized internal spinal fixator allows the measurement of three force components and three moments acting in the fixator. Implant loads were determined in up to 20 measuring sessions for different activities, including walking, standing, sitting, lying in the supine position, and lifting an extended leg while in the supine position. RESULTS: Implant loads often increased shortly after anterior interbody fusion was performed. Several patients retained the same high level even after fusion had taken place. This explains the reason why screw breakage sometimes occurs more than half a year after implantation. The time of fusion could not be pinpointed from the loading curves. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that fixators may be highly loaded even after fusion has occurred. A flexion bending moment acts on the implant even with the body in a relaxed lying position. This means that already shortly after the anterior procedure, the shape of the spine is not neutral and unloaded, but slightly deformed, which loads the fixators. Pedicle screw breakage more than half a year after insertion does not prove that anterior interbody fusion has not occurred.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Influence of load carrying on loads in internal spinal fixators.

After spinal stabilization with an implant, patients want to know whether carrying loads will endanger their spine and their implant. Therefore, the effect of carrying a weight on the loading of internal spinal fixation devices was determined in 10 patients using instrumented, telemeterized internal fixators. Patients carried a 5kg dumbbell in one hand as well as up to 20kg in both hands. Compared to normal standing carrying a weight caused only a slight increase of the fixator loads in all patients. The maximum flexion bending moment in the fixators was then lower than during walking. Carrying a weight even decreased the axial compression force in the fixators of the patients with the T11 or T12 vertebra bridged. Patients also raised their arms in anteversion while holding weights of up to 5kg with both hands. This increased the flexion bending moment in the fixators. Only a small part of a carried weight is taken over by internal fixators. Carrying a shopping bag only slightly increases the risk of pedicle screw breakage, however, since the spine has to support most of the additional weight, it represents a risk with regard to correction loss and bone sintering.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Changes in the loads on an internal spinal fixator after iliac-crest autograft.

Spines are often stabilised posteriorly by internal fixation and anteriorly by a bone graft. The effect of an autologous bone graft from the iliac crest on implant loads is unknown. We used an internal spinal fixation device with telemetry to measure implant loads for several body positions and activities in nine patients before and after anterior interbody fusion. With the body upright, implant loads were often higher after than before fusion using a bone graft. Distraction of the bridged region led to high implant loads in patients with a fractured vertebra and to marked changes in load in those with degenerative instability. Leaving the lower of the bridged intervertebral discs intact led to only small changes in fixator load after anterior interbody fusion. A bone graft alone does not guarantee a reduction of implant loads.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Loads on internal spinal fixators measured in different body positions.

Telemeterized internal spinal fixation devices were implanted in ten patients. The loads acting on the fixators were compared for different body positions, including standing, sitting, and lying in a supine, prone, and lateral position. Implant loads differed considerably from patient to patient depending, for example, on the indication for surgery and the surgical procedure. They were altered by anterior interbody fusion. Mostly, only small differences in implant loads were found for the various lying positions. Flexion bending moments were significantly higher in upright than in lying body positions. Loads on the fixators were not higher for sitting than for standing. Patients who have undergone mono- or bisegmental spine stabilization should therefore be allowed to sit as soon as they can leave the bed.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Hip joint forces in sheep.

Testing orthopaedic implants at the proximal femur of sheep requires knowledge of the contact forces acting on this joint. Telemeterized implants were used for long-term measurements of these forces in four sheep, mostly during treadmill walking. Joint forces in the same sheep varied widely from day to day and interindividual differences were also pronounced. Forces during walking were mostly higher than in previous short-term measurements. At medium walking speed, loads in the range of 65-140% of the body weight were typical. Fast walking increased the forces by only 20%, compared to slow speed. Stomping on the ground at the beginning of the stance phase and starting to run freely led to very high forces. The highest values observed were nearly four times the body weight. As in humans, the directions of high forces varied only slightly in the frontal plane throughout the whole stance phase but much more in the transverse plane. With regard to the force magnitudes and their directions, sheep seem to be a good model for testing human implant at the proximal femur.

Animals↗

PubMed1999

Hip endoprosthesis for in vivo measurement of joint force and temperature.

Friction between the prosthetic head and acetabular cup increases the temperature in hip implants during activities like walking. A hip endoprosthesis was instrumented with sensors to measure the joint contact forces and the temperature distribution along the entire length of the titanium implant. Sensors and two inductively powered telemetry units are placed inside the hip implant and hermetically sealed against body fluids. Each telemetry unit contains an integrated 8-channel telemetry chip and a radio frequency transmitter. Force, temperature and power supply data are transmitted at different frequencies by two antennas to an external twin receiver. The inductive power supply is controlled by a personal computer. Force and temperature are monitored in real time and all data are stored on a video tape together with the patient's images. This paper describes the design and accuracy of the instrumented implant and the principal function of the external system components.

Body Temperature↗

PubMed1999

Braces do not reduce loads on internal spinal fixation devices.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a brace or harness on loads on internal spinal fixation devices. DESIGN: The implant loads were measured in vivo using telemeterized internal spinal fixators. BACKGROUND: Only limited information exists regarding the load reduction due to a brace or harness. METHODS: A Boston overlap brace, a reclination brace, and a lumbotrain harness were examined to determine how they affect the loads on internal spinal fixation devices. The implant loads were measured using telemeterized fixators in six patients for several positions and activities, including sitting, standing, walking, bending forward, and lifting an extended leg in a supine position. RESULTS: None of the braces studied were able to markedly reduce the loads on the fixators. Frequently even higher fixator loads were measured when wearing a brace or harness. CONCLUSIONS: It does not seem helpful to brace patients after mono- or bisegmental stabilization of the lumbar spine.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

[Loading on internal spinal fixation devices].

The loads acting on internal spinal fixation devices were measured for different activities in ten patients using telemeterized bisegmental implants. The highest loads were found for walking and lateral bending of the upper body while standing. When bending forwards the upper body, the fixator loads were only slightly altered. The forces and moments were not higher during sitting than during standing. Therefore, sitting should be allowed for patients with instrumented spines as soon as getting up is allowed. The forces and moments in the fixators were often altered due to anterior interbody fusion. Especially in patients with degenerative instability, the implant loads were higher after anterior interbody fusion than before. Braces were not able to markedly reduce the fixator loads. Therefore, it does not seem helpful to brace patients after mono- or bisegmental stabilization of the thoracic or lumbar spine.

Braces↗

PubMed1998

Influence of muscle forces on loads in internal spinal fixation devices.

STUDY DESIGN: The loads acting on an internal spinal fixation device were measured in vivo. OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of muscle forces on implant loads. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Only limited information exists regarding the loads acting on spinal implants in vivo. Though the muscles greatly influence spinal load, they have been neglected in most studies. METHODS: Telemeterized internal spinal fixation devices were used to study the influence of muscle forces on the implant loads in three patients before and after anterior interbody fusion. RESULTS: Contracting abdominal or back muscles in a lying position was found to significantly increase implant loads. Hanging by the hands from wall bars as well as balancing with the hands on parallel bars reduced the implant loads compared with standing; however, hanging by the feet with the head upside down did not reduce implant loads compared with lying in a supine position. When lying on an operating table with only the foot end lowered so that the hips were bent, the patient had different load measurements in the conscious and anesthetized state before anterior interbody fusion. The anesthetized patient evidenced predominately extension moments in both fixators, whereas flexion moments were observed in the right fixator of the conscious patient. After anterior interbody fusion had occurred, the differences in implant loads resulting from anesthesia were small. CONCLUSIONS: The muscles greatly influence implant loads. They prevent an axial tensile load on the spine when part of the body weight is pulling, e.g., when the patient is hanging by his hands or feet. The implant loads may be strongly altered when the patient is under anesthesia.

Abdominal Muscles↗

PubMed1998

Placing a bone graft more posteriorly may reduce the risk of pedicle screw breakage: analysis of an unexpected case of pedicle screw breakage.

Telemeterized internal spinal fixation devices were implanted in a patient with degenerative instability and a narrow spinal canal in order to measure the fixator loads during daily activities. Anterior interbody fusion was performed three weeks later. During walking, the typical maximum flexion bending moments were 10 N m in the left and 5 N m in the right fixator. On removal of the implants three months later, a fatigue fracture was found not on the high loaded left side but in the upper right pedicle screw. The crack started on the caudal side of the cross-sectional area and progressed cranially. Upper vertebral tilting in the sagittal plane must have caused the screw breakage. This would probably have been prevented by a more posteriorly placed bone graft.

Activities of Daily Living↗

PubMed1997

Loads on an internal spinal fixation device during walking.

Only little knowledge exists concerning the loads on internal spinal fixation devices during walking. In this study, forces and moments were measured in two patients using telemeterized spinal fixators. Although implant loads differed strongly before and after anterior fusion as well as between the two patients, some results were consistent. In every test series, implant loads were higher in walking than in lying, sitting or standing. Walking speed had little influence on implant loads. Staircase walking put slightly higher loads on the implants than normal level walking. Normal use of two crutches reduced implant loads only slightly, whereas a wheeled invalid walker reduced them by about 25%.

Adult↗