Effect of axial compression on stiffness and deformation of human lumbar spine in flexion-extension

Abstract

Objective The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of axial compression, employed with a follower-load mechanism, on the response of the lumbar spine in flexion and extension bending. Additional goals include measurement of both the kinetic (stiffness) and kinematic (deformation distribution) responses, evaluating how the responses vary across specimens, and to develop response corridors that can be used to evaluate human body models (HBMs) and anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). Methods Seven mid-sized male adult lumbar spines (T12-S1) from postmortem human surrogates were tested in subinjurious flexion and extension bending with 0, 900, and 1800 N of superimposed axial compression. Tests were performed in load-control with a 6-DOF robotic test system that applied pure flexion and extension moments to the specimens, and axial compression was directed along the spine’s curvature via a follower load mechanism powered by force-controlled linear actuators. Load-deformation response data were captured and used to characterize the kinetic response of the lumbar spine in flexion/extension, and how it varies with axial compression. Individual vertebral kinematics were captured using 3D motion capture and the data was used to illustrate the distribution of bending deformation across each intervertebral joint of the spine, as well has how that distribution changes with axial compression. These response data were used to develop elliptical path-length parameterized response corridors for surrogate biofidelity evaluation. Results The lumbar spine was found to be generally stiffer in extension than in flexion, but this difference decreased with increasing axial compression. The lumbar spine exhibited a nonlinear kinetic (moment vs. angle) response in flexion that became more linear and stiffer with the addition of axial compression. In flexion without axial load, the majority of the bending deformation occurred at the L5-S1 joint, whereas in extension, deformation was more evenly distributed across the different intervertebral levels, but the locus of deformation was located in the mid-proximal lumbar at L2-L3. Conclusions The superposition of axial compression in the lumbar spine affects the kinetic and kinematic response of the lumbar spine in flexion and extension. The response data and approach detailed in this study permit better assessment of ATD and HBM biofidelity.