Hadagali Prasannaah, Fischer Steven L, Callaghan Jack P, Cronin Duane S
Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Kinesiology and Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Ann Biomed Eng. 2024 Mar;52(3):510-525. doi: 10.1007/s10439-023-03396-7. Epub 2023 Nov 3.
PURPOSE: Non-neutral neck positions are important initial conditions in impact scenarios, associated with a higher incidence of injury. Repositioning in finite element (FE) neck models is often achieved by applying external boundary conditions (BCs) to the head while constraining the first thoracic vertebra (T1). However, in vivo, neck muscles contract to achieve a desired head and neck position generating initial loads and deformations in the tissues. In the present study, a new muscle-based repositioning method was compared to traditional applied BCs using a contemporary FE neck model for forward head flexion of 30°. METHODS: For the BC method, an external moment (2.6 Nm) was applied to the head with T1 fixed, while for the muscle-based method, the flexors and extensors were co-contracted under gravity loading to achieve the target flexion. RESULTS: The kinematic response from muscle contraction was within 10% of the in vivo experimental data, while the BC method differed by 18%. The intervertebral disc forces from muscle contraction were agreeable with the literature (167 N compression, 12 N shear), while the BC methodology underpredicted the disc forces owing to the lack of spine compression. Correspondingly, the strains in the annulus fibrosus increased by an average of 60% across all levels due to muscle contraction compared to BC method. CONCLUSION: The muscle repositioning method enhanced the kinetic response and subsequently led to differences in tissue-level responses compared to the conventional BC method. The improved kinematics and kinetics quantify the importance of repositioning FE neck models using active muscles to achieve non-neutral neck positions.
目的:在碰撞场景中,非中立颈部位置是重要的初始条件,与更高的损伤发生率相关。在有限元(FE)颈部模型中重新定位通常是通过在约束第一胸椎(T1)的同时对头部施加外部边界条件(BCs)来实现的。然而,在体内,颈部肌肉收缩以实现期望的头部和颈部位置,从而在组织中产生初始负荷和变形。在本研究中,使用当代FE颈部模型对30°的头部前屈,将一种新的基于肌肉的重新定位方法与传统应用的BCs进行了比较。 方法:对于BC方法,在T1固定的情况下对头部施加外部力矩(2.6 Nm),而对于基于肌肉的方法,在重力加载下使屈肌和伸肌共同收缩以达到目标屈曲。 结果:肌肉收缩产生的运动学响应在体内实验数据的10%以内,而BC方法相差18%。肌肉收缩产生的椎间盘力与文献一致(167 N压缩,12 N剪切),而BC方法由于缺乏脊柱压缩而低估了椎间盘力。相应地,与BC方法相比,由于肌肉收缩,所有节段的纤维环应变平均增加了60%。 结论:与传统的BC方法相比,肌肉重新定位方法增强了动力学响应,随后导致了组织水平响应的差异。改进的运动学和动力学量化了使用主动肌肉重新定位FE颈部模型以实现非中立颈部位置的重要性。
Traffic Inj Prev. 2019-10-16
Traffic Inj Prev. 2005-3
Ergonomics. 2019-10-15
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2022-10
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013-2-4
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024-10-12
Int J Surg. 2025-1-1
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023-1-23
Ann Biomed Eng. 2023-4
J Appl Biomech. 2021-10-1
IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors. 2021