Lumbar spine motion during freestyle lifting and changes in this motion with time

1997 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.H. McGregor ◽  
I.D. McCarthy ◽  
S.P.F. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Motion

Validity and Reliability of the Metric Measurements in the Assessment of Lumbar Spine Motion in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis

Spine ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (19) ◽  
pp. E1189-E1196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aylin Rezvani ◽  
Onder Ergin ◽  
Ilhan Karacan ◽  
Mehmet Oncu
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Spine Motion

Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion

1985 ◽  
Vol 56 (sup212) ◽  
pp. 1-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Pearcy
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Motion

Mechanical properties of lumbar spine motion segments under large loads

1986 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.A.A. Miller ◽  
A.B. Schultz ◽  
D.N. Warwick ◽  
D.L. Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Motion

Mechanical Properties of Human Lumbar Spine Motion Segments—Part I: Responses in Flexion, Extension, Lateral Bending, and Torsion

1979 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. B. Schultz ◽  
D. N. Warwick ◽  
M. H. Berkson ◽  
A. L. Nachemson
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Mechanical Behavior ◽  
Human Cadaver ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Human Lumbar Spine ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Spine Motion ◽  
Pressure Changes ◽  
Posterior Elements

In this first part of a three-part report, the mechanical behavior of 42 fresh human cadaver lumbar motion segments in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and torsion is examined. Motions and intradiskal pressure changes that occurred in response to these loads, with posterior elements both intact and excised, are reported.

Definition of lumbar spine motion models using axial loaded CT (AL-CT) and cine AL-CT

1997 ◽  
Vol 99 ◽  
pp. S219
Author(s):  
Roberto Cartolari ◽  
Giovanni Battista Scarfo
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Spine Motion ◽  
Definition Of

Partitioning the total seatback reaction force amongst the lumbar spine motion segments during simulated rear-impact collisions

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Jackie D. Zehr ◽  
Kayla M. Fewster ◽  
Chad E. Gooyers ◽  
Robert J. Parkinson ◽  
Jack P. Callaghan
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Rear Impact ◽  
Spine Motion

scholarly journals The Large Individual Differences in the Range of Hip Joint Motion Rather Than Lumbar Spine Motion Affect Dynamic Spinopelvic Rhythm

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-260
Author(s):  
Katsuhito Yoshioka ◽  
Hideki Murakami ◽  
Satoru Demura ◽  
Satoshi Kato ◽  
Hiroki Kawashima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Hip Joint ◽  
Large Individual ◽  
Joint Motion ◽  
Spine Motion

Intertester Reliability and Validity of Motion Assessments During Lumbar Spine Accessory Motion Testing

2008 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Landel ◽  
Kornelia Kulig ◽  
Michael Fredericson ◽  
Bernard Li ◽  
Christopher M Powers
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Sagittal Plane ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Images ◽  
Segmental Motion ◽  
Segmental Mobility ◽  
Spine Motion ◽  
Mobile Segment ◽  
Good Agreement

Background and PurposePosterior-anterior (PA) assessment of the lumbar spine correlates with radiographic signs of instability and can guide treatment choices, yet studies of the validity of lumbar PA assessments have not been conducted in vivo. The purposes of this study were to determine the intertester reliability of the PA examination in assessing intersegmental lumbar spine motion and to evaluate the validity of this procedure in vivo with dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).SubjectsTwenty-nine subjects with central lumbar pain participated in this study.MethodsTwo physical therapists independently identified each subject's most and least mobile lumbar segments using the PA procedure. Midsagittal lumbar images were obtained simultaneously during one examiner's assessment. Lumbar segmental mobility was quantified from magnetic resonance images as the change in the intervertebral angle between the resting position and the end range of the PA force application. For each vertebral level tested, maximal sagittal-plane segmental motion was determined.ResultsThe intertester reliability for identifying the least mobile segment was good (agreement=82.8%, kappa=.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.48 to .94), but it was poor for identifying the most mobile segment (kappa=.29, 95% CI=−.13 to .71), despite good agreement (79.3%). The level of agreement between the PA assessments and intervertebral motion measured by MRI was poor (kappa=.04, 95% CI=−.16 to .24, and kappa=.00, 95% CI=−.09 to .08, for the least and most mobile segments, respectively).Discussion and ConclusionDespite good intertester reliability for identifying the least mobile segment, PA assessments of lumbar segmental mobility did not agree with sagittal-plane motion measured by dynamic MRI. This finding calls into question the validity of the PA procedure for assessing intervertebral lumbar spine motion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document