2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How Does the Rib Cage Affect the Biomechanical Properties of the Thoracic Spine? A Systematic Literature Review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The vast majority of previous experimental studies on the thoracic spine were performed without the entire rib cage, while significant contributive aspects regarding stability and motion behavior were shown in several other studies. The aim of this literature review was to pool and increase evidence on the effect of the rib cage on human thoracic spinal biomechanical characteristics by collating and interrelating previous experimental findings in order to support interpretations of in vitro and in silico studies disregarding the rib cage to create comparability and reproducibility for all studies including the rib cage and provide combined comparative data for future biomechanical studies on the thoracic spine. After a systematic literature search corresponding to PRISMA guidelines, eleven studies were included and quantitatively evaluated in this review. The combined data exhibited that the rib cage increases the thoracic spinal stability in all motion planes, primarily in axial rotation and predominantly in the upper thorax half, reducing thoracic spinal range of motion, neutral zone, and intradiscal pressure, while increasing thoracic spinal neutral and elastic zone stiffness, compression resistance, and, in a neutral position, the intradiscal pressure. In particular, the costosternal connection was found to be the primary stabilizer and an essential determinant for the kinematics of the overall thoracic spine, while the costotransverse and costovertebral joints predominantly reinforce the stability of the single thoracic spinal segments but do not alter thoracic spinal kinematics. Neutral zone and neutral zone stiffness were more affected by rib cage removal than the range of motion and elastic zone stiffness, thus also representing the essential parameters for destabilization of the thoracic spine. As a result, the rib cage and thoracic spine form a biomechanical entity that should not be separated. Therefore, usage of entire human non-degenerated thoracic spine and rib cage specimens together with pure moment application and sagittal curvature determination is recommended for future in vitro testing in order to ensure comparability, reproducibility, and quasi-physiological validity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression.

            An experimental approach was used to test human cadaveric spine specimens. To assess the response of the whole lumbar spine to a compressive follower load whose path approximates the tangent to the curve of the lumbar spine. Compression on the lumbar spine is 1000 N for standing and walking and is higher during lifting. Ex vivo experiments show it buckles at 80-100 N. Differences between maximum ex vivo and in vivo loads have not been satisfactorily explained. A new experimental technique was developed for applying a compressive follower load of physiologic magnitudes up to 1200 N. The experimental technique applied loads that minimized the internal shear forces and bending moments, made the resultant internal force compressive, and caused the load path to approximate the tangent to the curve of the lumbar spine. A compressive vertical load applied in the neutral lordotic and forward-flexed postures caused large changes in lumbar lordosis at small load magnitudes. The specimen approached its extension or flexion limits at a vertical load of 100 N. In sharp contrast, the lumbar spine supported a load of up to 1200 N without damage or instability when the load path was tangent to the spinal curve. Until this study, an experimental technique for applying compressive loads of in vivo magnitudes to the whole lumbar spine was unavailable. The load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine sharply increased under a compressive follower load, as long as the load path remained within a small range around the centers of rotation of the lumbar segments. The follower load path provides an explanation of how the whole lumbar spine can be lordotic and yet resist large compressive loads. This study may have implications for determining the role of trunk muscles in stabilizing the lumbar spine.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Bioeng Biotechnol
                Front Bioeng Biotechnol
                Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.
                Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-4185
                15 June 2022
                2022
                : 10
                : 904539
                Affiliations
                Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics , Ulm University , Ulm, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Marwan El-Rich, Khalifa University, United Arab Emirates

                Reviewed by: Mark Driscoll, McGill University, Canada

                Rui Zhu, Tongji University, China

                Dominika Ignasiak, ETH Zürich, Switzerland

                *Correspondence: Hans-Joachim Wilke, hans-joachim.wilke@ 123456uni-ulm.de

                This article was submitted to Biomechanics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology

                Article
                904539
                10.3389/fbioe.2022.904539
                9240654
                35782518
                2e9798d7-801b-44f6-80b1-234e24f664da
                Copyright © 2022 Liebsch and Wilke.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 25 March 2022
                : 06 May 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft , doi 10.13039/501100001659 10.13039/501100001659;
                Award ID: WI 1352/20-2 WI 1352/23-1
                Categories
                Bioengineering and Biotechnology
                Systematic Review

                rib cage,thoracic spine,range of motion,neutral zone,coupled motions,stiffness,center of rotation,intradiscal pressure

                Comments

                Comment on this article