Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

It is well established that posterior spinal surgery results in damage to the paraspinal musculature. The effects of such iatrogenic changes on spinal loading have not been previously investigated, particularly at levels adjacent to a spinal fusion. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the effect of simulated muscle damage on post-operative spinal loading at the adjacent levels to a spinal fusion during upright postures using a mathematical model.

Methods

A musculoskeletal model of the spine using ArtiSynth with 210 muscle fascicles was used to predict spinal loading in an upright posture. The loading at L1–L2 and L5–S1 were estimated before and after simulated paraspinal muscle damage (i.e., removal of muscle attachments at L2–L5) along the lumbar spine, both with a spinal fusion at L2–L5 and without a spinal fusion.

Results

The axial compressive forces at the adjacent levels increased after simulated muscle damage, with the largest changes being at the rostral level (78 % increase in presence of spinal fusion; 73 % increase without spinal fusion) compared to the caudal level (41 % in presence of fusion and 32 % without fusion). Shear forces increased in a similar manner at both the rostral and caudal levels. These changes in loading were due to a redistribution of muscle activity from the local lumbar to the global spinal musculature.

Conclusions

The results suggest that the paraspinal muscles of the lumbar spine play an important role in adjacent segment loading of a spinal fusion, independent of the presence of rigid spinal instrumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC et al (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1938–1944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wai EK, Santos ERG, Morcom RA, Fraser RD (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging 20 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1952–1956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Strömqvist B (2007) Adjacent segment hypermobility after lumbar spine fusion after surgery. Acta Orthop 78:834–839. doi:10.1080/17453670710014635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Seitsalo S, Schlenzka D (1997) Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 6:393–397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, Zafiropoulos A (2009) Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J 18:830–840. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0976-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaito T, Hosono N, Mukai Y et al (2010) Induction of early degeneration of the adjacent segment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion by excessive distraction of lumbar disc space. J Neurosurg Spine 12:671–679. doi:10.3171/2009.12.SPINE08823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mannion AF, Leivseth G, Brox J-I, et al. (2014) Long-term follow up suggests spinal fusion is associated with increased adjacent segment disc degeneration but without influence on clinical outcome: results of a combined follow-up from 4 RCTs. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976) 39:1373–83. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000437

  8. Lotz JC, Chin JR (2000) Intervertebral disc cell death is dependent on the magnitude and duration of spinal loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:1477–1483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Stokes IAF, Iatridis JC (2004) Mechanical conditions that accelerate intervertebral disc degeneration: overload versus immobilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2724–2732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Walter BA, Korecki CL, Purmessur D et al (2011) Complex loading affects intervertebral disc mechanics and biology. Osteoarthr Cartil 19:1011–1018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan SCW, Ferguson SJ, Gantenbein-Ritter B (2011) The effects of dynamic loading on the intervertebral disc. Eur Spine J 20:1796–1812

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim J, Yang S-J, Kim H et al (2012) Effect of shear force on intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration: an in vivo rat study. Ann Biomed Eng 40:1996–2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hodges PW, Richardson CA (1996) Inefficient muscular stabilization of the lumbar spine associated with low back pain: a motor control evaluation of transversus abdominis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:2640–2650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cholewicki J, Silfies SP, Shah RA et al (2005) Delayed trunk muscle reflex responses increase the risk of low back injuries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2614–2620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee AS, Cholewicki J, Reeves NP et al (2010) Comparison of trunk proprioception between patients with low back pain and healthy controls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91:1327–1331

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsao H, Tucker KJ, Hodges PW (2011) Changes in excitability of corticomotor inputs to the trunk muscles during experimentally-induced acute low back pain. Neuroscience 181:127–133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haig AJ, London Z, Sandella DE (2013) Symmetry of paraspinal muscle denervation in clinical lumbar spinal stenosis: support for a hypothesis of posterior primary ramus stretching? Muscle Nerve 48:198–203

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Leinonen V, Määttä S, Taimela S et al (2003) Paraspinal muscle denervation, paradoxically good lumbar endurance, and an abnormal flexion–extension cycle in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:324–331

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wang G, Karki SB, Xu S et al (2014) Quantitative MRI and X-ray analysis of disc degeneration and paraspinal muscle changes in degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. doi:10.3233/BMR-140515

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y et al (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:1023–1028

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Gejo R, Tsuji H (1998) Preventive measures of back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery in rats. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2282–2287

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: a histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:941–944

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cawley DT, Alexander M, Morris S (2014) Multifidus innervation and muscle assessment post-spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 23:320–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Keller A, Gunderson R, Reikerås O, Brox JI (2003) Reliability of computed tomography measurements of paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area and density in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1455–1460. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000067094.55003.AD

    Google Scholar 

  25. Keller A, Brox JI, Gunderson R et al (2003) Trunk muscle strength, cross-sectional area, and density in patients with chronic low back pain randomized to lumbar fusion or cognitive intervention and exercises. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang H-L, Lu F-Z, Jiang J-Y et al (2011) Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J-Beijing 124:3868

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kramer M, Katzmaier P, Eisele R et al (2001) Surface electromyography-verified muscular damage associated with the open dorsal approach to the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 10:414–420

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim D-Y, Lee S-H, Chung SK, Lee H-Y (2004) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ et al (1989) Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14:33–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Panjabi MM (2007) Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22:257–265. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Malakoutian M, Volkheimer D, Street J et al (2015) Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration?—a qualitative systematic literature review. Eur Spine J 24:1865–1881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Anderst WJ, Donaldson WF, Lee JY, Kang JD (2013) Cervical spine intervertebral kinematics with respect to the head are different during flexion and extension motions. J Biomech 46:1471–1475

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR, Wilke H-J (2015) Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: critical analysis of the literature. Eur J Spine 24:1882–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL (1995) Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion: a cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:526–531

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chow DHK, Luk KDK, Evans JH, Leong JCY (1996) Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:549–555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS et al (1997) The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2655–2663

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pfeiffer M, Hoffman H, Goel VK et al (1997) In vitro testing of a new transpedicular stabilization technique. Eur Spine J 6:249–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bastian L, Lange U, Knop C et al (2001) Evaluation of the mobility of adjacent segments after posterior thoracolumbar fixation: a biomechanical study. Eur Spine J 10:295–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:418–423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Moore J, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA et al (2006) Tapered cages in anterior lumbar interbody fusion: biomechanics of segmental reactions. J Neurosurg Spine 5:330–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2006) Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 15:1276–1285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. McGill SM, Norman RW (1986) Partitioning of the L4–L5 dynamic moment into disc, ligamentous, and muscular components during lifting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 11:666–678

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Stokes IAF, Gardner-Morse M (1995) Lumbar spine maximum efforts and muscle recruitment patterns predicted by a model with multijoint muscles and joints with stiffness. J Biomech 28:173–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A (2006) Model and in vivo studies on human trunk load partitioning and stability in isometric forward flexions. J Biomech 39:510–521. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.11.030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. de Zee M, Hansen L, Wong C et al (2007) A generic detailed rigid-body lumbar spine model. J Biomech 40:1219–1227. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.05.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Christophy M, Faruk Senan NA, Lotz JC, O’Reilly OM (2012) A musculoskeletal model for the lumbar spine. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 11:19–34. doi:10.1007/s10237-011-0290-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Han K-S, Zander T, Taylor WR, Rohlmann A (2012) An enhanced and validated generic thoraco-lumbar spine model for prediction of muscle forces. Med Eng Phys 34:709–716. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.09.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bresnahan L, Fessler RG, Natarajan RN (2010) Evaluation of change in muscle activity as a result of posterior lumbar spine surgery using a dynamic modeling system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E761–E767. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e45a6e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Malakoutian M, Street J, Wilke H-J et al (2015) A musculoskeletal model of the lumbar spine using ArtiSynth—development and validation. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng Imag Vis 1–8. doi:10.1080/21681163.2016.1187087

  50. Lloyd JE, Stavness I, Fels S (2012) ArtiSynth: A fast interactive biomechanical modeling toolkit combining multibody and finite element simulation. In: Soft Tissue Biomechanical Modeling for Computer Assisted Surgery. Springer, pp 355–394. doi:10.1007/8415_2012_126

  51. Stavness I, Lloyd JE, Payan Y, Fels S (2011) Coupled hard–soft tissue simulation with contact and constraints applied to jaw–tongue–hyoid dynamics. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 27:367–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Stavness I, Lloyd JE, Fels S (2012) Automatic prediction of tongue muscle activations using a finite element model. J Biomech 45:2841–2848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dao TT, Pouletaut P, Charleux F Lazáry Á, Eltes P, Varga PP, Tho MC (2014) Estimation of patient specific lumbar spine muscle forces using multi-physical musculoskeletal model and dynamic MRI. In: Huynh VN, Denoeux T, Tran DH, Le AC, Pham SB (eds) Knowledge and Systems Engineering vol. 2, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 411–422. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02821-7_36

  54. Panjabi MM, Brand RA Jr, White AA III (1976) Three-dimensional flexibility and stiffness properties of the human thoracic spine. J Biomech 9:185–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Heuer F, Schmidt H, Klezl Z et al (2007) Stepwise reduction of functional spinal structures increase range of motion and change lordosis angle. J Biomech 40:271–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gardner-Morse MG, Stokes IA (2004) Structural behavior of human lumbar spinal motion segments. J Biomech 37:205–212. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Millard M, Uchida T, Seth A, Delp SL (2013) Flexing computational muscle: modeling and simulation of musculotendon dynamics. J Biomech Eng 135:21005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cobb WS, Burns JM, Kercher KW et al (2005) Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults. J Surg Res 129:231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Stavness IK (2010) Byte your tongue. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia

  60. Wilke H-J, Neef P, Hinz B et al (2001) Intradiscal pressure together with anthropometric data—a data set for the validation of models. Clin Biomech 16:S111–S126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Poh S-Y, Yue W-M, Chen JL-T et al (2011) Two-year outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Orthop Surg 19:135–140

  62. Min J-H, Jang J-S, Lee S-H (2007) Comparison of anterior-and posterior-approach instrumented lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 7(1):21–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Chou W-Y, Hsu C-J, Chang W-N, Wong C-Y (2002) Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in elderly patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 122:39–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Yee TJ, Terman SW, La Marca F, Park P (2014) Comparison of adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci Off J Neurosurg Soc Australas 21(10):1796–1801

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kim H-J, Moon S-H, Chun H-J et al (2009) Comparison of mechanical motion profiles following instrumented fusion and non-instrumented fusion at the L4–5 segment. Clin Invest Med 32:E64–E69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Masoud Malakoutian & Thomas Oxland

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, ICORD, Blusson Spinal Cord Centre, 5th Floor, 818 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada

    John Street, Marcel Dvorak & Thomas Oxland

  3. Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Center of Musculoskeletal Research, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

    Hans-Joachim Wilke

  4. Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

    Ian Stavness

  5. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Sidney Fels

Authors
  1. Masoud Malakoutian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Street
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hans-Joachim Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ian Stavness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcel Dvorak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sidney Fels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Oxland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Oxland.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malakoutian, M., Street, J., Wilke, HJ. et al. Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J 25, 2929–2937 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4686-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4686-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation