寰枢椎后路柔性固定的生物力学研究

目的分析细棒、PEEK棒固定对寰枢关节稳定性的影响。方法采用6具新鲜成人枕骨(occipital bone,Oc)~颈椎C4节段进行测试,模拟以下手术及固定状态:①完整状态;②损伤状态:枢椎齿状突II型骨折;③坚强固定:寰枢椎均采用普通椎弓根螺钉固定,直径3.5 mm钛棒连接;④PEEK棒:直径3.5 mm的PEEK棒连接;⑤细棒:直径2.0 mm钛棒连接。采用重复测量实验设计,在完整、损伤和不同的固定状态下,通过脊柱试验机对标本分别施加1.5 N·m的前屈/后伸、左/右侧弯和左/右轴向旋转的纯力偶矩。采用Optotrak三维运动测量系统连续采集标本运动,分析寰枢椎之间角度运动范围和中性区。结果采用直径3.5 mm的钛棒,2.0 mm的细棒以及3.5 mm的PEEK棒固定后,在前屈、后伸、侧弯和旋转方向上均显著减小了固定节段的运动范围(P<0.05)。直径3.5 mm和2.0 mm的棒固定后的运动范围,在各个方向上无显著性差异。PEEK棒固定的运动范围仅在侧弯方向上大于坚强固定(P=0.005),其他方向无显著性差异。3种固定方式在屈伸、侧弯和旋转方向上均显著减小了固定节段的中性区(P<0.05)。各种固定方式之间相比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论在寰枢关节采用直径2.0 mm的细棒固定,与坚强固定的稳定性相当。采用直径3.5 mm的PEEK棒固定,在前屈、后伸、旋转方向上与坚强固定的稳定性相当,在侧弯方向上弱于坚强固定。     

Tibial acceleration and shock attenuation while running over different surfaces in a trail environment

ObjectivesIncreased tibial axial acceleration and reduced shock attenuation are associated with running injuries and are believed to be influenced by surface type. Trail running has increased in popularity and is thought to have softer surface properties than paved surface, but it is unclear if trail surfaces influence tibial acceleration and shock attenuation. The purpose of this study was to investigate peak triaxial and resultant tibial acceleration as well as axial and resultant shock attenuation among dirt, gravel, and paved surfaces.DesignFifteen recreational runners (12 females, 3 males, age = 27.7 ± 9.1 years) ran over dirt, gravel, and paved surfaces in a trail environment while instrumented with triaxial tibial and head accelerometers.MethodsDifferences between tri-planar peak tibial accelerations (braking, propulsion, axial, medial, lateral, and resultant) and shock attenuations (axial and resultant) among surface types were assessed with one-way ANOVAs with Bonferroni post-hoc tests.ResultsNo significant differences were found for tibial accelerations or shock attenuations among surface types (p > 0.05).ConclusionsDirt and gravel trail running surfaces do not have lower tibial accelerations or greater shock attenuation than paved surfaces. While runners are encouraged to enjoy the psychological benefits of trail running, trail surfaces do not appear to reduce loading forces associated with running-related injuries.     

Biomechanical behavior of brain injury caused by sticks using finite element model and Hybrid-III testing

Objective: To study the biomechanical mechanism of head injuries beaten with sticks, which is common in the battery or assaultive cases. Methods: In this study, the Hybrid-III anthropomorphic test device and finite element model (FEM) of the total human model for safety (THUMS) head were used to determine the biomechanical response of head while being beaten with different sticks. Total eight Hybrid-III tests and four finite element simulations were conducted. The contact force, resultant acceleration of head center of gravity, intracranial pressure and von Mises stress were calculated to determine the different biomechanical behavior of head with beaten by different sticks. Results: In Hybrid-III tests, the stick in each group demonstrated the similar kinematic behavior under the same loading condition. The peak values of the resultant acceleration for thick iron stick group, thin iron stick group, thick wooden stick group and thin wooden stick group were 203.4 g, 221.1 g, 170.5 g and 122.2 g respectively. In finite element simulations, positive intracranial pressure was initially observed in the frontal comparing with negative intracranial pressure in the contra-coup site. Subsequently the intracranial pressure in the coup site was decreasing toward negative value while the contra-coup intracranial pressure increasing toward positive values. Conclusions: The results illustrated that the stiffer and larger the stick was, the higher the von Mises stress, contact force and intracranial pressure were. We believed that the results in the Hybrid-III tests and THUMS head simulations for brain injury beaten with sticks could be reliable and useful for better understanding the injury mechanism.     

Multi-segment spine kinematics: Relationship with dance training and low back pain

BackgroundSpine posture, range of motion (ROM) and movement asymmetry can contribute to low back pain (LBP). These variables may have greater impact in populations required to perform repetitive spine movements, such as dancers; however, there is limited evidence to support this.Research questionWhat is the influence of dance and LBP on spinal kinematics?MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, multi-segment spinal kinematics were examined in 60 female participants, including dancers (n = 21) and non-dancers (n = 39) with LBP (n = 33) and without LBP (n = 27). A nine-camera motion analysis system sampling at 100 Hz was used to assess standing posture, as well as ROM and movement asymmetry for side bend and trunk rotation tasks. A two-way ANOVA was performed for each of the outcome variables to detect any differences between dancers and non-dancers, or individuals with and without LBP.ResultsCompared to non-dancers, dancers displayed a flatter upper lumbar angle when standing (p < 0.01, ηp² = 0.15), and achieved greater frontal plane ROM for the upper lumbar (p = 0.04, ηp² = 0.08) and lower thoracic (p = 0.02, ηp² = 0.09) segments. There were no differences between dancers and non-dancers for transverse plane ROM (p > 0.05) or movement asymmetry (p > 0.05). There was no main effect for LBP symptoms on any kinematic measures, and no interaction effect for dance group and LBP on spinal kinematics (p > 0.05).SignificanceFemale dancers displayed a flatter spine posture and increased spine ROM compared to non-dancers for a select number of spine segments and movement tasks. However, the overall number of differences was small, and no relationship was observed between LBP and spinal kinematics. This suggests that these simple, static posture, ROM, and asymmetry measures often used in clinical practice can provide only limited generalisable information about the impact of dance or LBP on spinal kinematics.     

Body weight support through a walking cane in inexperienced users with knee osteoarthritis

BackgroundWalking canes are a self-management strategy recommended for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by clinical practice guidelines. Ensuring that an adequate amount of body-weight support (%BWS) is taken through the walking cane is important as this reduces measures of knee joint loading.Research question1) How much body weight support do people with knee OA place through a cane? 2) Do measures of body weight support increase following a brief simple training session?MethodsSeventeen individuals with knee pain who had not used a walking cane before were recruited. A standard-grip aluminum cane was then used for 1 week with limited manufacturer instructions. Following this, participants were evaluated using an instrumented force-measuring cane to assess body weight support (% total body weight) through the cane. Force data were recorded during a 430-metre walk undertaken twice; once before 10 min of cane training administered by a physiotherapist, and once immediately after training. Measures of BWS (peak force, average force, impulse equal to the average cane force times duration, and cane-ground contact duration) were extracted. Using bathroom scales, training aimed to take at least 10% body weight support through the cane.ResultsBefore training, the average peak BWS was 7.2 ± 2.5% of total body weight. Following 10 min of training, there was a significant increase in average peak BWS by 28%, average BWS by 25%, and BWS impulse by 54% (p < 0.05). However, individual BWS responses to training were variable. Duration of cane placement increased by 22% after training (p = 0.02). Timing of peak BWS through the cane occurred at 51% of contact phase before training, and at 53% after training (p = 0.05).SignificanceA short training session can increase the transfer of body weight through a walking cane. However, more sophisticated feedback may be needed to achieve target levels of BWS.     

Guidelines for external fixation frame rigidity and stresses

Using results from FEM analyses and experiments as references, analytical methods are applied to develop simple approximate formulas to relate frame rigidity, maximal pin stresses, and peak pin-bone stresses in external fracture fixation (EFF) configurations in axial loading to the most important frame, pin, and bone parameters. It is found that, in a realistic range, the parameters can be adapted to vary the frame rigidity from about 13 N/mm to 17,000 N/mm, thereby reducing the maximal stresses in the pins and at the pin-bone interface by a factor of 140. In particular, when compromises have to be established in the frame characteristics in order to ensure a flexible configuration and limit the stress values at the same time, the formulas presented can provide useful guidelines. The side-bar separation and the pin modulus, in particular, can be adapted to decrease the rigidity, while only moderately increasing the stresses, thereby reducing changes for pin failure, pin-bone loosening, and pin-tract infection. A nomogram is presented for a quick reference to estimated relations between frame characteristics, rigidity, and stresses. It is believed that this material may be of use in EFF design and applications in clinical and animal experimental trials.     

微型种植体支抗愈合期稳定性的比较

目的比较不同愈合时间种植体支抗的稳定性。方法10只新西兰大白兔应用种植体60枚,均分为种植即刻组、种植后1周组、2周组、4周组、8周组进行拉出实验和转矩实验。采用单因素方差分析组间差异,相关性分析愈合时间、最大剪切力、最大力矩两两之间的相关性。结果4周与8周组最大剪切力分别为(179·68±24·65)N、(212·06±42·51)N;4周与8周组的最大力矩分别为(0·47±0·13)N·m、(0·61±0·16)N·m,与其他组相比差异均有统计学意义(P<0·05)。愈合时间、最大剪切力、最大力矩两两之间均呈正相关。结论4周是种植体愈合期生物稳定性的一个关键时间点。8周内种植体的生物力学性能与愈合时间呈正相关。     

胸椎椎弓根根外固定螺钉拔出力的实验研究

目的:比较两种胸椎椎弓根根外固定方法与经椎弓根固定方法的螺钉拔出强度,评价胸椎椎弓根根外固定的生物力学效果。方法:新鲜胸椎标本4具,共32个肋骨-椎骨序列,根据螺钉固定方法不同分为3组,A组采用经椎弓根固定,B组采用经横突-椎体固定,C组采用经改良肋横突法固定。根据所用螺钉规格不同将其分为4种不同测试条件:D1,螺钉直径5.5mm,长度40mm;D2,螺钉直径5.5mm,长度45mm;D3,螺钉直径6.5mm,长度45mm;D4,螺钉直径6.5mm,长度50mm。测试3种固定方法下的螺钉拔出力,并做统计学分析对比。结果:D1条件下A组拔出力为787.0±119.3N,B组为706.2±109.4N,C组为616.1±82.3N,3组间比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D2条件下A组拔出力为862.3±128.7N,B组为811.4±113.6N,C组为655.1±92.2N,A、B组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),A、B组与C组比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D3条件下,A组拔出力为855.3±117.1N,B组为938.0±131.5N,C组为861.3±117.8N,A、C组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),A、C组与B组比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D4条件下A组拔出力为864.3±120.9N,B组为959.6±135.2N,C组为941.2±115.4N,A组与B、C组比较均有显著性差异(P<0.01),B、C组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:使用直径6.5mm、长度45～50mm的螺钉固定时,胸椎椎弓根根外固定螺钉拔出力优于椎弓根固定,有较好的生物力学效果。     

磷酸钙水泥填充固定桡骨远端骨折的抗旋转生物力学研究

目的对磷酸钙水泥(CPC)填充固定桡骨远端骨折的抗旋转应力进行评价,并与传统的克氏针固定方法进行比较。方法18根人桡骨标本制备桡骨远端骨折伴骨缺损模型,随机分为三组:克氏针固定组、CPC固定组和CPC 克氏针联合固定组。设定扭转速度为5°／min,最大扭转角度为10°时停止。记录扭转刚度、10°内的最大扭矩及所对应的最大扭角。结果在10°的扭转范围内,CPC固定组、CPC 克氏针联合固定组的扭转刚度、最大扭矩均比克氏针固定组大,差异有统计学意义(P< 0．01);最大扭转角度分别为4．3°和5．0°,均比克氏针组(9．6°)小,差异有统计学意义(P<0．01)。CPC固定组与CPC 克氏针联合固定组之间的扭转刚度、最大扭矩及最大扭角差异无统计学意义(P> 0．05)。结论在旋转角度小于4°范围内,CPC的抗旋转固定强度要比克氏针大,超过这个范围,骨水泥就会发生断裂,CPC的有效固定范围比克氏针要小。