Biomedical subjects

Sorin Siegler

Publications and source records attributed to Sorin Siegler.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

The effect of anterior cervical fusion on neck motion.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To precisely measure the effect of anterior cervical fusion on neck motion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior cervical decompression and stabilization procedures are successful in treating recalcitrant cervical radiculopathy and cervical myelopathy. Most assume that these "fusion" procedures result in a loss of neck motion, although changes in overall motion following anterior cervical fusion have never been precisely quantified. METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients undergoing anterior cervical fusion of one to four levels underwent cervical range of motion testing in three planes using an unconstrained instrumented linkage before surgery and more than 3 months after surgery. These data were compared with that of 10 volunteers with no prior history of neck complaints. Motion data were compared between patients and volunteers, and between the patients before surgery and at last follow-up, using RMANOVA and Fisher's PLSD post hoc test. RESULTS: Before surgery, the patients had significantly less motion than the volunteers in all directions. Following surgical fusion, patients gained a statistically significant amount of motion in all planes, although they did not achieve the motion seen among the volunteers. Gains in motion were seen among all patients, including those undergoing four-level fusions, and there was no correlation between postoperative motion and the number of levels fused. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing anterior cervical fusion have diminished neck motion compared with normal volunteers. Following surgery, they may be expected to gain motion, even when undergoing multilevel fusions. However, these patients are unlikely to regain the neck motion seen among normal individuals without neck complaints.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine.

STUDY DESIGN: In vitro comparison of four reconstruction techniques following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in a human cadaveric model. INTRODUCTION: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a relatively new technique that avoids the morbidity of an anterior approach and the nerve root manipulation of a posterior interbody fusion. This study measured the effects of a TLIF on the overall and segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine using four different spinal implant configurations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and combined anterior-posterior spinal procedures are gaining wide acceptance for the treatment of selected patients with segmental spinal instability and spondylolisthesis with associated degenerative changes. Each fusion technique may have different effects on the overall flexibility of the lumbar spine. The unilateral TLIF procedure with adjunctive pedicular fixation is one variation of an interbody fusion technique that requires less bony and soft tissue dissection and minimizes nerve root manipulation compared with other interbody fusion methods. METHODS: Five fresh-frozen, human lumbar spines were nondestructively subjected to flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation moments using a previously validated spine flexibility tester, and displacements were measured. Testing the intact lumbar spine was followed by testing of a unilateral L4-L5 TLIF using a single ramp carbon fiber cage without adjunctive internal fixation. The single carbon fiber (Brantigan) cage was inserted obliquely in a posterolateral to anteromedial position in the L4-L5 disc space. Following testing of the cage alone, three different adjunctive stabilization techniques were tested. Posterior stabilization involved one of the following: a contralateral translaminar facet screw, single side/ipsilateral nonsegmental pedicle screw fixation, and bilateral nonsegmental pedicle screw fixation. The overall flexibility of each lumbar spine was calculated from load-displacement curves for each axis of rotation. The flexibility of the L4-L5 segment of each spine was computed from kinematic motion data acquired via attached LED sensors to the L4 and L5 vertebral bodies. Statistical testing was performed with paired t tests. RESULTS: The flexibility of the entire (T12-S1) destabilized spine after TLIF with interbody cage alone and with all three reconstructive techniques was comparable with the intact spine. However, the motion at the L4-L5 segment was significantly increased for the TLIF with interbody cage alone in axial rotation (299% of intact, P < 0.01), with no significant change in flexion-extension (79% of intact, P = 0.22) or lateral bending (87% of intact, P = 0.39). With the addition of a contralateral translaminar facet screw, the motion at the L4-L5 segment remained significantly more flexible in axial rotation (250% of intact, P = 0.06) although less than with the cage alone. With the unilateral pedicle screw construct, the L4-L5 segment remained more flexible in axial rotation (182% of intact, P = 0.07) although significantly less than with the facet screw construct (P < 0.05). The addition of bilateral pedicle screws most closely reapproximated the flexibility of the intact spine with no significant difference in axial rotation (91% of intact, P = 0.30), flexion-extension (93% of intact, P = 0.19), or lateral bending (99% of intact, P = 0.47). The motion at the L4-L5 segment with bilateral pedicle screws was not significantly different than for the intact specimen in axial rotation (144% of intact, P = 0.17), flexion-extension (81% of intact, P = 0.21), or lateral bending (86% of intact, P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: TLIF reconstruction with a solitary cage did not increase overall spine flexibility from the intact condition but significantly increased segmental flexibility at L4-L5 in axial rotation. A unilateral translaminar facet screw had minimal stabilizing effect at L4-L5. Unilateral pedicle screws frews further increased stiffness at the L4-L5 segment. However, TLIF with bilateral pedicle screws most closely approximated the L4-L5 segmental flexibility of the intact spine.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

The effect of posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction on the plantar pressure characteristics and the kinematics of the arch and the hindfoot.

OBJECTIVE: To study posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction using an in vitro model of the foot and ankle during the heel-off instant of gait. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have concentrated primarily on the effect of posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction on the kinematics of the hindfoot and the arch. METHODS: The specimens were loaded using a custom designed axial and tendon loading system and the location of the center of pressure was used to validate heel-off. Arch position, hindfoot position and plantar pressure data were recorded before and after the posterior tibialis tendon was unloaded. These data were recorded with the ligaments intact and after creating a flatfoot deformity. RESULTS: Unloading the posterior tibialis tendon caused significant posterior movement in the center of pressure for the intact and flatfoot conditions. This also resulted in a medial shift in the force acting on the forefoot. The forefoot loads shifted medially after a flatfoot was created even when the posterior tibialis tendon remained loaded. The spatial relationships of the bones of the arch and the bones of the hindfoot also changed significantly for the intact specimen, and to a lesser extent after a flatfoot. CONCLUSIONS: The posterior tibialis tendon plays a fundamental role in shifting the center of pressure anteriorly at heel-off. Posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction causes posterior shift in the center of pressure and abnormal loading of the foot's medial structures. This may be the reason that posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction leads to an acquired flatfoot deformity. Conversely, flatfoot deformity may be a predisposing factor in the onset of posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction. This tendon also acts to lock the bones of the arch and the hindfoot in a stable configuration at heel-off, but a flatfoot deformity compromises this ability.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMed2004

Iso-shaping rigid bodies for estimating their motion from image sequences.

In many medical imaging applications, due to the limited field of view of imaging devices, acquired images often include only a part of a structure. In such situations, it is impossible to guarantee that the images will contain exactly the same physical extent of the structure at different scans, which leads to difficulties in registration and in many other tasks, such as the analysis of the morphology, architecture, and kinematics of the structures. To facilitate such analysis, we developed a general method, referred to as iso-shaping, that generates structures of the same shape from segmented image sequences. The basis for this method is to automatically find a set of key points, called shape centers, in the segmented partial anatomic structure such that these points are present in all images and that they represent the same physical location in the object, and then trim the structure using these points as reference. The application area considered here is the analysis of the morphology, architecture, and kinematics of the joints of the foot from magnetic resonance images acquired at different joint positions and load conditions. The accuracy of the method is analyzed by utilizing ten data sets for iso-shaping the tibia and the fibula via four evaluative experiments. The analysis indicates that iso-shaping produces results as predicted by the theoretical framework.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International Society of Biomechanics.

The Standardization and Terminology Committee (STC) of the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) proposes a general reporting standard for joint kinematics based on the Joint Coordinate System (JCS), first proposed by Grood and Suntay for the knee joint in 1983 (J. Biomech. Eng. 105 (1983) 136). There is currently a lack of standard for reporting joint motion in the field of biomechanics for human movement, and the JCS as proposed by Grood and Suntay has the advantage of reporting joint motions in clinically relevant terms. In this communication, the STC proposes definitions of JCS for the ankle, hip, and spine. Definitions for other joints (such as shoulder, elbow, hand and wrist, temporomandibular joint (TMJ), and whole body) will be reported in later parts of the series. The STC is publishing these recommendations so as to encourage their use, to stimulate feedback and discussion, and to facilitate further revisions. For each joint, a standard for the local axis system in each articulating bone is generated. These axes then standardize the JCS. Adopting these standards will lead to better communication among researchers and clinicians.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMed2002

An automated neck flexibility tester.

We investigate automation and control options for the neck flexibility tester (NFT) (P. McClure et al., 1998), a device originally used to measure the flexibility of the human cervical spine. The motivation is to lay the foundations for design and implementation of investigative devices that would allow studies of mechanical properties of the spine under repetitive dynamic loading. We derive the equations of motion for an automated NFT (ANFT) using a Lagrangian formulation. These equations, which represent a simplified first-order model of the dynamics, are used to simulate the ANFT using the software package Simulink. Two control schemes are examined: proportional plus integral plus derivative (PID) control and dynamic inversion. Both are simulated for setpoint and tracking control. It appears that PID control is preferred due to its simplicity of design and relative insensitivity to the dynamic model of the ANFT.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMed2002

Biomechanical evaluation of the efficacy of external stabilizers in the conservative treatment of acquired flatfoot deformity.

This study quantified and compared the efficacy of in-shoe orthoses and ankle braces in stabilizing the hindfoot and medial longitudinal arch in a cadaveric model of acquired flexible flatfoot deformity. This was addressed by combining measurement of hindfoot and arch kinematics with plantar pressure distribution, produced in response to axial loads simulating quiet standing. Experiments were conducted on six fresh-frozen cadaveric lower limbs. Three conditions were tested: intact-unbraced; flatfoot-unbraced; and flatfoot-braced. Flatfoot deformity was created by sectioning the main support structures of the medial longitudinal arch. Six different braces were tested including two in-shoe orthoses, three ankle braces and one molded ankle-foot orthosis. Our model of flexible flatfoot deformity caused the calcaneus to evert, the talus to plantarflex and the height of the talus and medial cuneiform to decrease. Flexible flatfoot deformity caused a pattern of medial shift in plantar pressure distribution, but minimal change in the location of the center of pressure. Furthermore, in-shoe orthoses stabilized both the hindfoot and the medial longitudinal arch, while ankle braces did not. Semi-rigid foot and ankle orthoses acted to stabilize the medial longitudinal arch. Based on these results, it was concluded that treatment of flatfoot deformity should at least include use of in-shoe orthoses to partially restore the arch and stabilize the hindfoot.

Ankle Joint↗