Cargando…

Measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: Comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability

PURPOSE: Neutral zone (NZ) parameters in spinal biomechanics studies are sensitive to spinal instability, disc degeneration, and repair. Multiple methods in the literature quantify NZ, yet no consensus exists on applicability and comparability of methods. This study compares five different NZ quanti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Di Pauli von Treuheim, Theodor, Torre, Olivia M., Mosley, Grace E., Nasser, Philip, Iatridis, James C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323462/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32613163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1088
_version_ 1783551775376146432
author Di Pauli von Treuheim, Theodor
Torre, Olivia M.
Mosley, Grace E.
Nasser, Philip
Iatridis, James C.
author_facet Di Pauli von Treuheim, Theodor
Torre, Olivia M.
Mosley, Grace E.
Nasser, Philip
Iatridis, James C.
author_sort Di Pauli von Treuheim, Theodor
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Neutral zone (NZ) parameters in spinal biomechanics studies are sensitive to spinal instability, disc degeneration, and repair. Multiple methods in the literature quantify NZ, yet no consensus exists on applicability and comparability of methods. This study compares five different NZ quantification methods using two different load‐deflection profiles. METHODS: Rat caudal and lumbar motion segments were tested in axial rotation to generate load‐deflection curves with profiles exhibiting prominent distinction between elastic and NZ regions (ie, triphasic) and profiles that did not (ie, viscoelastic). NZ was quantified using five methods: trilinear, double sigmoid (DS), zero load, stiffness threshold (ST), and extrapolated elastic zone. Absolute agreement and consistency of NZ parameters were assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland‐Altman analyses, and analysis of variance. RESULTS: For triphasic profiles, NZ magnitude exhibited high consistency (methods correlate but differ in absolute values), and only some methods exhibited agreement. For viscoelastic profiles, NZ magnitude showed limited consistency and no absolute agreement. NZ stiffness had high agreement and consistency across most methods and profiles. For triphasic profiles, the linear NZ regions for all methods were not well‐described by a linear fit yet for viscoelastic profiles all methods characterized a linear NZ region. CONCLUSION: This NZ comparison study showed surprisingly limited agreement and consistency among NZ parameters with approximately 5% to 100% difference depending on the method and load‐deflection profile. Nevertheless, the DS and ST methods appeared to be most comparable. We conclude that most NZ quantification methods cannot be applied interchangeably, highlighting a need to clearly state NZ calculation methods. Future studies are required to identify which methods are most sensitive to disc degeneration and repair in order to identify a “best” method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7323462
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73234622020-06-30 Measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: Comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability Di Pauli von Treuheim, Theodor Torre, Olivia M. Mosley, Grace E. Nasser, Philip Iatridis, James C. JOR Spine Methods Papers PURPOSE: Neutral zone (NZ) parameters in spinal biomechanics studies are sensitive to spinal instability, disc degeneration, and repair. Multiple methods in the literature quantify NZ, yet no consensus exists on applicability and comparability of methods. This study compares five different NZ quantification methods using two different load‐deflection profiles. METHODS: Rat caudal and lumbar motion segments were tested in axial rotation to generate load‐deflection curves with profiles exhibiting prominent distinction between elastic and NZ regions (ie, triphasic) and profiles that did not (ie, viscoelastic). NZ was quantified using five methods: trilinear, double sigmoid (DS), zero load, stiffness threshold (ST), and extrapolated elastic zone. Absolute agreement and consistency of NZ parameters were assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland‐Altman analyses, and analysis of variance. RESULTS: For triphasic profiles, NZ magnitude exhibited high consistency (methods correlate but differ in absolute values), and only some methods exhibited agreement. For viscoelastic profiles, NZ magnitude showed limited consistency and no absolute agreement. NZ stiffness had high agreement and consistency across most methods and profiles. For triphasic profiles, the linear NZ regions for all methods were not well‐described by a linear fit yet for viscoelastic profiles all methods characterized a linear NZ region. CONCLUSION: This NZ comparison study showed surprisingly limited agreement and consistency among NZ parameters with approximately 5% to 100% difference depending on the method and load‐deflection profile. Nevertheless, the DS and ST methods appeared to be most comparable. We conclude that most NZ quantification methods cannot be applied interchangeably, highlighting a need to clearly state NZ calculation methods. Future studies are required to identify which methods are most sensitive to disc degeneration and repair in order to identify a “best” method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7323462/ /pubmed/32613163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1088 Text en © 2020 The Authors. JOR Spine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methods Papers
Di Pauli von Treuheim, Theodor
Torre, Olivia M.
Mosley, Grace E.
Nasser, Philip
Iatridis, James C.
Measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: Comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability
title Measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: Comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability
title_full Measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: Comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability
title_fullStr Measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: Comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability
title_full_unstemmed Measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: Comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability
title_short Measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: Comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability
title_sort measuring the neutral zone of spinal motion segments: comparison of multiple analysis methods to quantify spinal instability
topic Methods Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323462/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32613163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1088
work_keys_str_mv AT dipaulivontreuheimtheodor measuringtheneutralzoneofspinalmotionsegmentscomparisonofmultipleanalysismethodstoquantifyspinalinstability
AT torreoliviam measuringtheneutralzoneofspinalmotionsegmentscomparisonofmultipleanalysismethodstoquantifyspinalinstability
AT mosleygracee measuringtheneutralzoneofspinalmotionsegmentscomparisonofmultipleanalysismethodstoquantifyspinalinstability
AT nasserphilip measuringtheneutralzoneofspinalmotionsegmentscomparisonofmultipleanalysismethodstoquantifyspinalinstability
AT iatridisjamesc measuringtheneutralzoneofspinalmotionsegmentscomparisonofmultipleanalysismethodstoquantifyspinalinstability