Match!

Morphological investigation of low back erector spinae muscle: Historical data populations

Published on Sep 1, 2015in International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics1.57
· DOI :10.1016/j.ergon.2015.02.001
Celal Gungor2
Estimated H-index: 2
(AU: Auburn University),
Ruoliang Tang2
Estimated H-index: 2
(UWM: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)
+ 3 AuthorsGerard A. Davis4
Estimated H-index: 4
(AU: Auburn University)
Cite
Abstract
Abstract Accurate and reliable low back morphological data such as the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the erector spinae muscle (ESM) is vital for biomechanical modeling of the lumbar spine to estimate spinal loading and enhance the understanding of injury mechanisms. The objective of the present study is to enhance the current database regarding ESM sizes by studying with larger sample sizes, collecting data from live subjects, using high resolution MRI scans, using computerized, reliable, and repeatable measurement techniques, and analyzing data from three inter-vertebral disc (IVD) levels for both genders. A total of 163 subjects (82 males and 81 females) were included in the study. CSAs of both right and left ESMs were measured from axial-oblique MRI scans using architectural design software. The average CSA of the ESM was 23.50, 24.22, and 24.33 cm 2 for females and 30.00, 28.28, and 24.60 cm 2 for males at the L3/L4, L4/L5, and L5/S1 levels, respectively. Results agree with some studies, but generally larger than most previous studies, possibly due to differences in sampling (sample size, subject characteristics: age, anthropometrics, cadavers, etc.), measurement techniques (scanning technology, scanning plane, scanning posture, different IVD levels), or muscle definitions. Relevance to industry Lifting tasks are very common in occupational settings and associated with low back pain. Accurate and reliable low back muscle size data is of importance to produce more efficient low back biomechanical models to better understand the loading mechanism in lifting tasks and to minimize low back pain risk regarding the lifting task. However, available low back muscle size data are quite limited. This study fills part of this gap by providing data from a large sample population of live subjects, multiple levels, both genders, high resolution MRI scans, reliable and repeatable measurement technique. The updated low back muscle size data presented in this paper can be used by biomechanical modelers to improve current low back biomechanical models.
  • References (41)
  • Citations (4)
Cite
References41
Newest
#1Dennis E. Anderson (Harvard University)H-Index: 13
#2John D'Agostino (BIDMC: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center)H-Index: 4
Last.Mary L. Bouxsein (Harvard University)H-Index: 78
view all 5 authors...
#1Houcine Ayari (École de technologie supérieure)H-Index: 2
#2Marc Thomas (École de technologie supérieure)H-Index: 25
Last.O. Serrus (École nationale supérieure de mécanique et des microtechniques)H-Index: 1
view all 4 authors...
#1Chang Ho Kang (UOU: University of Ulsan)H-Index: 1
#2M. J. Shin (UOU: University of Ulsan)H-Index: 1
Last.C. S. Lee (UOU: University of Ulsan)H-Index: 1
view all 5 authors...
Cited By4
Newest
#1Ruoliang Tang (UWM: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)H-Index: 2
#2Ruoliang Tang (UWM: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)H-Index: 1
Last.Kenneth Bo Foreman (UofU: University of Utah)H-Index: 7
view all 7 authors...
#1Ruoliang Tang (UWM: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)H-Index: 2
#2Ming-Lun Lu (NIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health)
Last.Jay Kapellusch (UWM: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)H-Index: 14
view all 8 authors...
#1Menekse Salar Barim (ORISE: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education)
#2Richard F. Sesek (AU: Auburn University)H-Index: 5
Last.Gerard A. Davis (AU: Auburn University)H-Index: 4
view all 6 authors...
#1Ruoliang Tang (UWM: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)H-Index: 2
#2Margaret Holland (UWM: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)
Last.Arun Garg (UWM: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)H-Index: 38
view all 7 authors...
View next paperVariation in spinal load and trunk dynamics during repeated lifting exertions.