Subject-Specific Spino-Pelvic Models Reliably Measure Spinal Kinematics During Seated Forward Bending in Adult Spinal Deformity.
adult spinal deformity
motion analysis
opensim model
operator variability
reliability
spine kinematics
spine model
subject-specific modeling and simulation
Journal
Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology
ISSN: 2296-4185
Titre abrégé: Front Bioeng Biotechnol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101632513
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
03
06
2021
accepted:
17
08
2021
entrez:
20
9
2021
pubmed:
21
9
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Image-based subject-specific models and simulations are recently being introduced to complement current state-of-the-art mostly static insights of the adult spinal deformity (ASD) pathology and improve the often poor surgical outcomes. Although the accuracy of a recently developed subject-specific modeling and simulation framework has already been quantified, its reliability to perform marker-driven kinematic analyses has not yet been investigated. The aim of this work was to evaluate the reliability of this subject-specific framework to measure spine kinematics in ASD patients, in terms of 1) the overall test-retest repeatability; 2) the inter-operator agreement of spine kinematic estimates; and, 3) the uncertainty of those spine kinematics to operator-dependent parameters of the framework. To evaluate the overall repeatability 1], four ASD subjects and one control subject participated in a test-retest study with a 2-week interval. At both time instances, subject-specific spino-pelvic models were created by one operator to simulate a recorded forward trunk flexion motion. Next, to evaluate inter-operator agreement 2], three trained operators each created a model for three ASD subjects to simulate the same forward trunk flexion motion. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC's) of the range of motion (ROM) of conventional spino-pelvic parameters [lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), pelvic tilt (PT), T1-and T9-spino-pelvic inclination (T1/T9-SPI)] were used to evaluate kinematic reliability 1] and inter-operator agreement 2]. Lastly, a Monte-Carlo probabilistic simulation was used to evaluate the uncertainty of the intervertebral joint kinematics to operator variability in the framework, for three ASD subjects 3]. LL, SVA, and T1/T9-SPI had an excellent test-retest reliability for the ROM, while TK and PT did not. Inter-operator agreement was excellent, with ICC values higher than test-retest reliability. These results indicate that operator-induced uncertainty has a limited impact on kinematic simulations of spine flexion, while test-retest reliability has a much higher variability. The definition of the intervertebral joints in the framework was identified as the most sensitive operator-dependent parameter. Nevertheless, intervertebral joint estimations had small mean 90% confidence intervals (1.04°-1.75°). This work will contribute to understanding the limitations of kinematic simulations in ASD patients, thus leading to a better evaluation of future hypotheses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34540815
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.720060
pii: 720060
pmc: PMC8440831
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
720060Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Overbergh, Severijns, Beaucage-Gauvreau, Ackermans, Moke, Jonkers and Scheys.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007 Nov;54(11):1940-50
pubmed: 18018689
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2015;18(14):1555-63
pubmed: 24963785
Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 May;43(5):1098-111
pubmed: 25404535
J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Jun;32(6):1282-1290
pubmed: 28244135
J Biomech Eng. 2015 Aug;137(8):081003
pubmed: 25901907
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017 May;231(5):415-422
pubmed: 28427313
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
J Orthop Res. 2018 Jan;36(1):498-505
pubmed: 28597988
Gait Posture. 2014;39(1):655-8
pubmed: 24055179
J Biomech. 1999 Feb;32(2):129-34
pubmed: 10052917
J Biomech Eng. 2016 Mar;138(3):4032379
pubmed: 26720096
J Biomech. 2013 Sep 3;46(13):2186-93
pubmed: 23891175
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 12;9(11):e112625
pubmed: 25390896
Gait Posture. 2016 Feb;44:231-7
pubmed: 27004664
J Biomech Eng. 2015 Feb 1;137(2):020905
pubmed: 25474098
J Biomech. 2020 Sep 18;110:109946
pubmed: 32827766
Gait Posture. 2004 Oct;20(2):196-203
pubmed: 15336291
J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Jul;25(1):1-14
pubmed: 26918574
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2019 Dec;38(12):2796-2806
pubmed: 31059431
J Biomech. 2003 Jul;36(7):1019-30
pubmed: 12757811
J Biomech. 2020 Nov 9;112:110044
pubmed: 32977297
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2019 Apr;22(5):451-464
pubmed: 30714401
Int J Spine Surg. 2012 Dec 01;6:167-73
pubmed: 25694886
J Biomech. 2018 Mar 21;70:175-184
pubmed: 29248192
J Biomech. 2018 Oct 5;79:248-252
pubmed: 30213648
J Biomech. 2020 Mar 26;102:109328
pubmed: 31526588
Spine J. 2020 Jun;20(6):934-946
pubmed: 32058084
J Biomech. 2012 May 11;45(8):1463-71
pubmed: 22507351