Biomedical subjects

Stephen H M Brown

Publications and source records attributed to Stephen H M Brown.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Exploring the geometric and mechanical characteristics of the spine musculature to provide rotational stiffness to two spine joints in the neutral posture.

Joint stiffness is inherently linked to both performance and injury. Muscular activation is the predominant provider of stiffness to the lumbar spine, and is essential to ensure optimal spine performance. The purpose of the current paper was to examine the potential of the trunk muscles to provide rotational joint stiffness at two spine joints in the neutral posture, and to demonstrate the sensitivity of this stiffening potential to various muscle orientation and stiffness assumptions. Two separate anatomical models were utilized to analyze the muscular contributions to the 3-dimensional rotational stiffness about each of the L1-L2 and L4-L5 spine joints. Total muscular stiffening potentials, for both joints in each anatomical model, were found to be highest about the global lateral bend axis, and lowest about the global axial twist axis. The stiffening potential was found to depend highly on both the assumed muscle stiffness coefficient (q value) and the moment arm of the muscle about the joint in question. Analyses of spine stiffness were found to be greatly affected by both the anatomical representation of the surrounding musculature and the selection of the q value in the determination of muscular stiffness. Inappropriate choices of either of these factors could lead to errors in stiffness and subsequently stability estimates, and in the interpretation and possible clinical recommendations stemming from such estimates.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMed2006

Effects of abdominal stabilization maneuvers on the control of spine motion and stability against sudden trunk perturbations.

Much discussion exists about which is the most effective technique to improve spine stability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of abdominal bracing and abdominal hollowing maneuvers to control spine motion and stability against rapid perturbations. Eleven healthy males were posteriorly loaded in different experimental conditions: resting with no knowledge of the perturbation timing; performing each of the stabilization maneuvers at 10%, 15% and 20% of internal oblique maximum voluntary contraction with no knowledge of the perturbation timing; and naturally coactivating the trunk muscles when perturbation timing was known. An EMG biofeedback system was used to control the pattern and intensity of abdominal coactivation. The muscular preactivation of seven trunk muscles (bilaterally registered), the applied force, and the torso muscular and kinematic responses to loading were measured; and the spine stability and compression were modeled. The hollowing maneuver was not effective for reducing the kinematic response to sudden perturbation. On the contrary, the bracing maneuver fostered torso cocontraction, reduced lumbar displacement, and increased trunk stability, but at the cost of increasing spinal compression. When the timing of the perturbation was known, the participants were able to stabilize the trunk while imposing smaller spine compressive loads.

Abdomen↗

PubMed2006

Effects of abdominal muscle coactivation on the externally preloaded trunk: variations in motor control and its effect on spine stability.

STUDY DESIGN: A repeated measures biomechanical analysis of the effects of abdominal bracing in preparation for a quick release of the loaded trunk. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the ability of individuals to abdominally brace the externally loaded trunk, and assess their success in achieving and enhancing appropriate spine stability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine stability requires trunk muscle coactivation, which demands motor control skill that differs across people and situations. The quick release protocol may offer insight into the motor control scheme and subsequent effect on spine stability. METHODS: There were 10 individuals who sat, torso upright, in an apparatus designed to foster a neutral spine position. They were instructed to support a posteriorly directed load to the trunk in either their naturally chosen manner, or by activating the abdominal muscles to 10%, 20%, or 30% of maximum ability. The externally applied load was then quickly released, thereby unloading the participant. Muscle pre-activation patterns, spine stability, and kinematic measures of trunk stiffness were quantified. RESULTS: Participants were able to stabilize their spine effectively by supporting the load in a naturally selected manner. Conscious, voluntary overdriving of this natural pattern often resulted in unbalanced muscular activation schemes and corresponding decreases in stability levels. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals in an externally loaded state appear to select a natural muscular activation pattern appropriate to maintain spine stability sufficiently. Conscious adjustments in individual muscles around this natural level may actually decrease the stability margin of safety.

Abdominal Muscles↗

PubMed2006

Effects of different levels of torso coactivation on trunk muscular and kinematic responses to posteriorly applied sudden loads.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining rapid spine loading have documented the influence of steady-state trunk preloads, and the resulting levels of trunk muscle preactivation, on the control of spine stability. However, the effects of different levels of muscle coactivation, and resulting spine loads, on the response to a perturbation of the externally unloaded trunk are unclear. METHODS: Fourteen male subjects coactivated the abdominal muscles at four different levels (approximately 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% of the maximal voluntary contraction) monitored by an electromyography biofeedback system while semi-seated in a neutral lumbar spine position. They were loaded posteriorly in two directions (0 degrees and 30 degrees from the sagittal plane) and with two different loads (6.80 and 9.07 kg). Force perturbation, spine displacement and electromyography activity were measured, and torso compression and stability were modeled. FINDINGS: Abdominal coactivation significantly increased spine stability and reduced the movement of the lumbar spine after perturbation, but at the cost of increasing spinal compression. Preactivation also reduced the frequency and magnitude, and delayed the onset of muscle reactions, mainly for the back muscles and the internal oblique. The higher magnitude load and the load applied in an oblique direction both showed more potentially hazardous effects on the trunk. INTERPRETATION: Torso coactivation increases spinal stiffness and stability and reduces the necessity for sophisticated muscle responses to perturbation. Although further investigation is needed, it appears there is an asymptotic function between coactivation and both stiffness and stability. There also appears to be more hazard when buttressing twisting components of a sudden load compared to sagittal components. Patients with trunk instability and intolerance to spine compression may benefit from low to moderate levels of coactivation.

Abdominal Muscles↗

PubMed2006

Do exercise balls provide a training advantage for trunk extensor exercises? A biomechanical evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Only a few abdominal muscle exercises have been quantitatively evaluated on both a mat and exercise ball, but the benefits reported for the ball have been equivocally applied to all exercises. The purpose of this study is to evaluate differences in the biological response of muscle activation, lumbar spine posture, and loading variables for extensor exercises performed on 2 surfaces. METHODS: Bilateral muscle activation was recorded from 7 sites (rectus abdominis, external/internal obliques, latissimus dorsi, thoracic/lumbar erector spinae, and multifidus) on 8 subjects. Three-dimensional lumbar spine postures and upper body kinematics were recorded while the participants performed the exercises. An electromyography-driven model was used to calculate spinal loading. RESULTS: Cocontraction of trunk flexor and extensor muscles was reduced by up to 30% for the extension exercises when performed on the ball. Peak muscle activation remained unchanged or decreased, and spinal loading (compression and anterior-posterior shear) decreased when the extension exercises were performed on the ball. The lumbar spine postures attained during the exercises did not differ between surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: The assumption that the use of an exercise ball will always create a greater challenge for the musculoskeletal system was not supported by the findings of this study. Likewise, in a healthy, young population, there does not appear to be any training advantage to performing extensor exercises on a ball versus a mat. However, in a rehabilitation scenario, these exercises performed on a ball could reduce low back loading and hence reduce the potential for reinjury.

Abdominal Muscles↗

PubMed2005

Muscle force-stiffness characteristics influence joint stability: a spine example.

BACKGROUND: The muscle force-stiffness relationship has often been modeled as linear, while in situ muscle research has clearly demonstrated non-linearity. Estimation of rotational joint stability relies on both a muscle's instantaneous pre-perturbation force and stiffness. Under conditions of static equilibrium, a muscle's stiffness will function in a stabilizing manner, while its force can function in either a stabilizing or destabilizing manner depending on the muscle's orientation about the joint. METHODS: A single muscle (rectus abdominis) was modeled and its individual direct stabilizing potential about the L4-L5 spine joint was analyzed. Three force-stiffness relationships were examined: (1) linear; (2) non-linear with moderate stiffness magnitudes; (3) non-linear with higher stiffness magnitudes. FINDINGS: With a linear force-stiffness relationship, stability increased proportional to muscle force; with a non-linear relationship, stability peaked and subsequently decreased at submaximal muscle forces. When considering the lower, as opposed to the higher non-linear stiffness magnitudes, the stabilizing potential of the muscle peaked at a lower muscle force level and actually became negative (destabilizing) at a critical stiffness magnitude. INTERPRETATION: It was concluded that a non-linear muscle force-stiffness relationship greatly alters the individual stabilizing potential of the muscle throughout its progression of force development. A muscle's stabilizing contribution may actually peak at and subsequently decrease above a critical submaximal force level. Incorporating this knowledge into stability models may assist in recognizing unstable events that lead to injury at higher levels of muscle activation.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMed2005

Constraining spine stability levels in an optimization model leads to the prediction of trunk muscle cocontraction and improved spine compression force estimates.

A major limitation of optimization models of the spine has been the inability to accurately predict trunk muscle co-activity. Antagonist muscle activity is thought to be necessary to maintain adequate levels of spine stability but, in turn, creates increased loading on the spine. It is thus hypothesized that the CNS attempts to optimize the relationship between spine loading and spine stability in determining muscular activation patterns. This study presents an optimization model of the spine in which stability was constrained to target levels predicted from regression equations of independent loading variables. Objective functions were set to either minimize the sum of the cubed muscle forces or minimize the sum of the squared intervertebral forces at the L4-L5 disc level. Results demonstrate that the inclusion of stability constraints in optimization simulations produced realistic predictions of antagonist muscle activity and predictions of spine compression levels that agree more closely with EMG-based estimates, compared to simulations in which stability was unconstrained. It was concluded that spinal stability is a vital consideration for the CNS when dictating trunk muscle recruitment patterns.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

An equation to calculate individual muscle contributions to joint stability.

The purpose of the current paper was to use the energy approach to develop a simplified equation for quantifying individual muscle contributions to mechanical stability about all three axes of a particular joint. Specific examples are provided for muscles acting about the lumbar spine's L4/L5 joint. The stability equation requires input of: (1) origin and insertion coordinates, relative to the joint of interest, (2) muscle force, and (3) muscle stiffness. The muscle force must be derived from a biomechanical analysis that first results in static equilibrium about all axes being studied. The equation can also accommodate muscles with nodes that change the line of action, with respect to a particular joint, as it passes from the origin to insertion. The results from this equation were compared to those from a Moment approach using more than two million simulated muscles with three-dimensional orientations. The differences between approaches were negligible in all cases. The primary advantage of the current method is that it is very easy to implement into any 2D or 3D biomechanical model of any joint, or system of joints. Furthermore, this approach will be useful in dissecting total joint stability into the individual contributions of each muscle for various systems, joints, postures and recruitment patterns.

Abdominal Muscles↗