4.5 Article

Body posture and backpack loading: an upright magnetic resonance imaging study of the adult lumbar spine

期刊

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 1407-1413

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3247-5

关键词

Disc compression; Backpack; MRI; Upright MRI; Intervertebral disc

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NNX10AM18G]
  2. UCSD Clinical Translational Research Institute fellowship award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Axial loading of the spine while supine, simulating upright posture, decreases intervertebral disc (IVD) height and lumbar length and increases lumbar lordosis. The purpose of this study is to measure the adult lumbar spine's response to upright posture and a backpack load using upright magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We hypothesize that higher spinal loads, while upright and with a backpack, will compress lumbar length and IVD height as well as decrease lumbar lordosis. Six volunteers (45 +/- A 6 years) underwent 0.6 T MRI scans of the lumbar spine while supine, upright, and upright with a 10 % body weight (BW) backpack. Main outcomes were IVD height, lumbar spinal length (distance between anterior-superior corners of L1 and S1), and lumbar lordosis (Cobb angle between the superior endplates of L1 and S1). The 10 % BW load significantly compressed the L4-L5 and L5-S1 IVDs relative to supine (p < 0.05). The upright and upright plus 10 % BW backpack conditions significantly compressed the anterior height of L5-S1 relative to supine (p < 0.05), but did not significantly change the lumbar length or lumbar lordosis. The L4-L5 and L5-S1 IVDs compress, particularly anteriorly, when transitioning from supine to upright position with a 10 % BW backpack. This study is the first radiographic analysis to describe the adult lumbar spine wearing common backpack loads. The novel upright MRI protocol described allows for functional, in vivo, loaded measurements of the spine that enables the study of spinal biomechanics and therapeutic interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据