Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/clinbiomech
Review
a,b
a,b,*
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Biomechanics Research Laboratory, Yale University School of Medicine,
P.O. Box 208071, New Haven, CT 06520-8071, USA
b
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
c
Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Received 10 August 2006; accepted 20 November 2006
Abstract
Stability is one of the most fundamental concepts to characterize and evaluate any system. This term is often ambiguously used in
spinal biomechanics. Confusion arises when the static analyses of stability are used to study dynamic systems such as the spine. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to establish a common ground of understanding, using standard, well-dened terms to frame future
discussions regarding spine dynamics, stability, and injury. A qualitative denition of stability, applicable to dynamic systems, is presented. Additional terms, such as robustness (which is often confused with stability) and performance are also dened. The importance
of feedback control in maintaining stability is discussed. Finally, these concepts are applied to understand low back pain and risk of
injury.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Spinal instability; Lumbar spine; Biomechanics; Dynamics
267
268
3.2. Robustness
Not stable
Stable
269
b
input
output
Feedback
control for
each
vertebra
Plant
k
Spine System
State of
the system
input
Feedback
Control
Fig. 4. (a,b) Feedback control of a spine.
Plant
Feedback
Controller
270
Input = 0
Input 0
Equilibrium position
Disturbed trajectory
Disturbed position
Intended trajectory
and appropriate force to stabilize the spine. The contribution of each component changes depending on the size of
the perturbation, as well as on the initial state of the spine
system. For instance, feedforward input from the CNS can
be used to increase trunk muscle co-activation prior to a
perturbation, thus increasing muscle stiness (and intervertebral stiness as well (Stokes et al., 2002)) allowing the
intrinsic properties of the system to contribute more to
the perturbation than responses with delays. Indeed, several studies have shown that voluntarily pre-tensioning of
trunk muscles obviates the need for a reex response,
which is less likely to occur following a perturbation
(Stokes et al., 2000; Granata et al., 2004a). This strategy
may be desirable in situations where the perturbation force
is large and expected (i.e. a body check in hockey), since
delays may cause stabilizing forces to act too late. Alternatively, in tasks that must be maintained for longer periods
and require precise control (i.e. standing), relying on
reexive pathways might be a better choice, since it is
metabolically more ecient than a muscle co-activation
strategy. Because of the various feedback pathways, there
is considerable exibility in how the spine system can maintain stability. However, for each task, there is most likely
an optimal control strategy that minimizes metabolic costs
and/or maximizes the systems performance.
Please note that further clarication regarding Fig. 6 is
necessary. The delineation between the plant and the controller is somewhat arbitrary. For instance, the intrinsic
properties of the intervertebral joint and muscles could
be included in the plant. We decided to include it as part
of the controller to emphasize the fact that these two elements also provide feedback control to the spine, which
is based on the state of the spine. For the remainder of this
paper, we will assume that only the reexive and voluntary
pathways that travel through the spinal cord represent the
feedback controller. The properties of the intervertebral
joint and intrinsic properties of the trunk muscles will be
included in the plant. With this new delineation, the logical
connection between the feedback controller and the neural
circuitry within the CNS can be made.
5. Plant versus system characteristics
Spine System
State of
the system
input
Intervertebral
joint properties
Feedback
control for
each
vertebra
Intrinsic muscle
k
properties
Short
Delay
Long
Delay
Reflex
k
contributions
Voluntary
k
contributions
271
No injury
Injury
272
273
Cholewicki, J., Siles, S.P., Shah, R.A., Greene, H.S., Reeves, N.P., Alvi,
K., Goldberg, B., 2005. Delayed trunk muscle reex responses increase
the risk of low back injuries. Spine 30, 26142620.
Crisco, J.J., Panjabi, M.M., 1990. Postural Biomechanical Stability and
Gross Muscular Architecture in the Spine. In: Winters, J.M., Woo,
S.L. (Eds.), Multiple Muscle Systems: Biomechanics and Movement
Organization. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 438450.
Crisco 3rd., J.J., Panjabi, M.M., 1991. The intersegmental and multisegmental muscles of the lumbar spine. A biomechanical model comparing lateral stabilizing potential. Spine 16, 793799.
Franklin, D.W., Osu, R., Burdet, E., Kawato, M., Milner, T.E., 2003.
Adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics achieved by combined
impedance control and inverse dynamics model. J. Neurophysiol. 90,
32703282.
Gauthier, G.M., Roll, J.P., Martin, B., Harlay, F., 1981. Eects of wholebody vibrations on sensory motor system performance in man. Aviat.
Space Environ. Med. 52, 473479.
Granata, K.P., Slota, G.P., Bennett, B.C., 2004a. Paraspinal muscle reex
dynamics. J. Biomech. 37, 241247.
Granata, K.P., Slota, G.P., Wilson, S.E., 2004b. Inuence of fatigue in
neuromuscular control of spinal stability. Human Factors 46, 8191.
Granata, K.P., Rogers, E., Moorhouse, K., 2005. Eects of static exion
relaxation on paraspinal reex behavior. Clin. Biomech. 20, 1624.
Hamilton, A.F., Jones, K.E., Wolpert, D.M., 2004. The scaling of motor
noise with muscle strength and motor unit number in humans. Exp.
Brain Res. 157, 417430.
Herrmann, C.M., Madigan, M.L., Davidson, B.S., Granata, K.P., 2006.
Eect of lumbar extensor fatigue on paraspinal muscle reexes. J.
Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 16, 637641.
Hides, J.A., Stokes, M.J., Saide, M., Jull, G.A., Cooper, D.H., 1994.
Evidence of lumbar multidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms
in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. Spine 19, 165172.
Hides, J.A., Richardson, C.A., Jull, G.A., 1996. Multidus muscle
recovery is not automatic after resolution of acute, rst-episode low
back pain. Spine 21, 27632769.
Hodges, P.W., Richardson, C.A., 1996. Inecient muscular stabilization
of the lumbar spine associated with low back pain. A motor control
evaluation of transversus abdominis. Spine 21, 26402650.
Hodges, P.W., Moseley, G.L., Gabrielsson, A., Gandevia, S.C., 2003.
Experimental muscle pain changes feedforward postural responses of
the trunk muscles. Exp. Brain Res. 151, 262271.
Jiang, H., Russell, G., Raso, V.J., Moreau, M.J., Hill, D.L., Bagnall,
K.M., 1995. The nature and distribution of the innervation of human
supraspinal and interspinal ligaments. Spine 20, 869876.
Jonsson, B., 1978. Quantitative electromyographic evaluation of muscular
load during work. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 6 (Suppl.), 6974.
Lariviere, C., Gagnon, D., Loisel, P., 2002. A biomechanical comparison
of lifting techniques between subjects with and without chronic low
back pain during freestyle lifting and lowering tasks. Clin. Biomech.
17, 8998.
Mannion, A.F., Weber, B.R., Dvorak, J., Grob, D., Muntener, M., 1997.
Fibre type characteristics of the lumbar paraspinal muscles in normal
healthy subjects and in patients with low back pain. J. Orthop. Res. 15,
881887.
Marras, W.S., Davis, K.G., Maronitis, A.B., 2001. A non-MVC EMG
normalization technique for the trunk musculature: Part 2. Validation
and use to predict spinal loads. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 11, 1118.
McGill, S.M., 2001. Low back stability: from formal description to issues
for performance and rehabilitation. Exer. Sport Sci. Rev. 29, 2631.
McGill, S.M., Cholewicki, J., 2001. Biomechanical basis for stability: an
explanation to enhance clinical utility. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.
31, 96100.
McLain, R.F., 1994. Mechanoreceptor endings in human cervical facet
joints. Spine 19, 495501.
Mendel, T., Wink, C.S., Zimny, M.L., 1992. Neural elements in human
cervical intervertebral discs. Spine 17, 132135.
Milner, T.E., 2002. Adaptation to destabilizing dynamics by means of
muscle cocontraction. Exp. Brain Res. 143, 406416.
274
Reeves, N.P., Everding, V.Q., Cholewicki, J., Morrisette, D.C., 2006. The
eects of trunk stiness on postural control during unstable seated
balance. Exp. Brain Res. 174, 694700.
Roberts, S., Eisenstein, S.M., Menage, J., Evans, E.H., Ashton, I.K., 1995.
Mechanoreceptors in intervertebral discs. Morphology, distribution,
and neuropeptides. Spine 20, 26452651.
Rogers, E.L., Granata, K.P., 2006. Disturbed paraspinal reex following
prolonged exionrelaxation and recovery. Spine 31, 839845.
Roll, J.P., Martin, B., Gauthier, G.M., Mussa Ivaldi, F., 1980. Eects of
whole-body vibration on spinal reexes in man. Aviat. Space Environ.
Med. 51, 12271233.
Sherwood, D.E., Schmidt, R.A., Walter, C.B., 1988. The force/forcevariability relationship under controlled temporal conditions. J. Mot.
Behav. 20, 106116.
Slifkin, A.B., Newell, K.M., 2000. Variability and noise in continuous
force production. J. Mot. Behav. 32, 141150.
Solomonow, M., Baratta, R.V., Banks, A., Freudenberger, C., Zhou,
B.H., 2003. Flexionrelaxation response to static lumbar exion in
males and females. Clin. Biomech. 18, 273279.
Sparto, P.J., Parnianpour, M., Marras, W.S., Granata, K.P., Reinsel,
T.E., Simon, S., 1997. Neuromuscular trunk performance and spinal
loading during a fatiguing isometric trunk extension with varying
torque requirements. J. Spinal Disord. 10, 145156.
Stokes, I.A., Gardner-Morse, M., Henry, S.M., Badger, G.J., 2000.
Decrease in trunk muscular response to perturbation with preactivation of lumbar spinal musculature. Spine 25, 19571964.
Stokes, I.A., Gardner-Morse, M., Churchill, D., Laible, J.P., 2002.
Measurement of a spinal motion segment stiness matrix. J. Biomech.
35, 517521.
Taimela, S., Kankaanpaa, M., Luoto, S., 1999. The eect of lumbar
fatigue on the ability to sense a change in lumbar position. A
controlled study. Spine 24, 13221327.
Van Dieen, J.H., Cholewicki, J., Radebold, A., 2003. Trunk muscle
recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain enhance the
stability of the lumbar spine. Spine 28, 834841.