@misc{BeimlerLeisslEbneretal., author = {Beimler, Josef and Leißl, Caroline and Ebner, Lena and Elsner, Michael and M{\"u}hlbauer, Gerhard and Kohlert, Dieter and Schubert, Martin J. W. and Weiß, Andreas P. and Sterner, Michael and Raith, Thomas and Afranseder, Martin and Krapf, Tobias and Mottok, J{\"u}rgen and Siemers, Christian and Großmann, Benjamin and H{\"o}cherl, Johannes and Schlegl, Thomas and Schneider, Ralph and Milaev, Johannes and Rampelt, Christina and Roduner, Christian and Glowa, Christoph and Bachl, Christoph and Schliekmann, Claus and Gnan, Alfons and Grill, Martin and Ruhland, Karl and Piehler, Thomas and Friers, Daniel and Wels, Harald and Pflug, Kenny and Kucera, Markus and Waas, Thomas and Schlachetzki, Felix and Boy, Sandra and Pemmerl, Josef and Leis, Alexander and Welsch, Andreas F.X. and Graf, Franz and Zenger, Gerhard and Volbert, Klaus and Waas, Thomas and Scherzinger, Stefanie and Klettke, Meike and St{\"o}rl, Uta and Heyl, C. and Boldenko, A. and Monkman, Gareth J. and Kujat, Richard and Briem, Ulrich and Hierl, Stefan and Talbot, Sebastian and Schmailzl, Anton and Ławrowski, Robert Damian and Prommesberger, Christian and Langer, Christoph and Dams, Florian and Schreiner, Rupert and Valentino, Piergiorgio and Romano, Marco and Ehrlich, Ingo and Furgiuele, Franco and Gebbeken, Norbert and Eisenried, Michael and Jungbauer, Bastian and Hutterer, Albert and Bauhuber, Michael and Mikrievskij, Andreas and Argauer, Monika and Hummel, Helmut and Lechner, Alfred and Liebetruth, Thomas and Schumm, Michael and Joseph, Saskia and Reschke, Michael and Soska, Alexander and Schroll-Decker, Irmgard and Putzer, Michael and Rasmussen, John and Dendorfer, Sebastian and Weber, Tim and Al-Munajjed, Amir Andreas and Verkerke, Gijsbertus Jacob and Renkawitz, Tobias and Haug, Sonja and Rudolph, Clarissa and Zeitler, Annika and Schaubeck, Simon and Steffens, Oliver and Rechenauer, Christian and Schulz-Brize, Thekla and Fleischmann, Florian and Kusterle, Wolfgang and Beer, Anne and Wagner, Bernd and Neidhart, Thomas}, title = {Forschungsbericht 2013}, editor = {Baier, Wolfgang}, address = {Regensburg}, organization = {Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg}, doi = {10.35096/othr/pub-799}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:898-opus4-7990}, pages = {80}, language = {de} } @inproceedings{GalibarovAlMunajjedDendorferetal., author = {Galibarov, Pavel E. and Al-Munajjed, Amir Andreas and Dendorfer, Sebastian and Christensen, Soeren Toerholm and Rasmussen, John}, title = {The effect of varying the stiffness of spinal fusion devices on the adjacent levels using multibody dynamics simulation}, series = {Orthopaedic Proceedings}, volume = {94-B}, booktitle = {Orthopaedic Proceedings}, number = {SUPP_XL01 Sep 2012}, pages = {2}, abstract = {INTRODUCTION Several clinical studies demonstrated long-term adjacent-level effects after implantation of spinal fusion devices[1]. These effects have been reported as adjacent joint degeneration and the development of new symptoms correlating with adjacent segment degeneration[2] and the trend has therefore gone to motion preservation devices; however, these effects have not been understood very well and have not been investigated thoroughly[3]. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of varying the stiffness of spinal fusion devices on the adjacent vertebral levels. Disc forces, moments and facet joint forces were analyzed. METHODS The AnyBody Modeling System was used to compute the in-vivo muscle and joint reaction forces of a musculoskeletal model. The full body model used in this study consists of 188 muscle fascicles in the lumbar spine and more than 1000 individual muscle branches in total. The model has been proposed by de Zee et al.[3], validated by Rasmussen et al.[4] and by Galibarov et al.[5]. The new model[5] determines the individual motions between vertebrae based on the equilibrium between forces acting on the vertebrae from muscles and joints and the passive stiffness in disks and ligaments, figure 1a. An adult of 1.75 m and 75 kg with a spinal implant in L4L5 was modeled. This model was subjected to a flexion-extension motion using different elastic moduli to analyze and compare to a non-implanted scenario. The analyzed variables were vertebral motion, the disc reaction forces and moments, as well as facet joint forces in the treated and the adjacent levels: L2L3, L3L4, L4L5 and L5-Sacrum. RESULTS When introducing a spinal fusion device in the L4L5 joint the reaction forces and moments decreased in this joint with stiffer devices leading to lower joint loads. However, in the adjacent joints, L3L4 and L5Sacrum, an increase was observed when implanting stiffer devices. Similar trends could be found for the L2L3 joint. The loads in the facet joints showed the same trends. While introducing a spinal fusion device reduced the facet joint forces in the treated joint, the loads in the adjacent facet joints were increased according to the stiffness of the implanted device, figure 1b. DISCUSSION While the treated disc joint showed reduced motion and loads, the adjacent levels demonstrated a significant increase. In particular, the increased facet joint forces in the adjacent levels can lead to adjacent level facet pain or accelerated facet joint degeneration. Introducing a device resulted in preventing facet contact and therefore facet joint loads, even using the device with the lowest stiffness. CONCLUSION The presented model shows that clinical complications such as facet joint degeneration in adjacent levels after implantation of spinal fusion device are consistent with the change in the mechanical-stimulus distribution in the system.}, language = {en} } @article{WeberAlMunajjedVerkerkeetal., author = {Weber, Tim and Al-Munajjed, Amir Andreas and Verkerke, Gijsbertus Jacob and Dendorfer, Sebastian and Renkawitz, Tobias}, title = {Influence of minimally invasive total hip replacement on hip reaction forces and their orientations}, series = {Journal of Orthopaedic Research}, volume = {32}, journal = {Journal of Orthopaedic Research}, number = {12}, doi = {10.1002/jor.22710}, pages = {1680 -- 1687}, abstract = {Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is becoming increasingly popular. Supporters claim that the main advantages of MIS total hip replacement (THR) are less pain and a faster rehabilitation and recovery. Critics claim that safety and efficacy of MIS are yet to be determined. We focused on a biomechanical comparison between surgical standard and MIS approaches for THR during the early recovery of patients. A validated, parameterized musculoskeletal model was set to perform a squat of a 50th percentile healthy European male. A bilateral motion was chosen to investigate effects on the contralateral side. Surgical approaches were simulated by excluding the incised muscles from the computations. Resulting hip reaction forces and their symmetry and orientation were analyzed. MIS THR seemed less influential on the symmetry index of hip reaction forces between the operated and nonoperated leg when compared to the standard lateral approach. Hip reaction forces at peak loads of the standard transgluteal approach were 24\% higher on the contralateral side when compared to MIS approaches. Our results suggest that MIS THR contributes to a greater symmetry of hip reaction forces in absolute value as well as force-orientation following THR.}, subject = {H{\"u}ftgelenkprothese}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{AlMunajjedNolteRasmussenetal., author = {Al-Munajjed, Amir Andreas and Nolte, Daniel and Rasmussen, John and Dendorfer, Sebastian}, title = {Force distribution in the foot during braking - a musculoskeletal approach}, series = {Human Modeling Symposium 2014, Munich, Germany}, booktitle = {Human Modeling Symposium 2014, Munich, Germany}, abstract = {High loads can appear in the individual joints of the human foot while the driver uses the pedals, in particular, during breaking. Measuring these internal forces is very difficult or almost impossible; therefore, advanced models are necessary to perform musculoskeletal simulations. The objective of this investigation was to see what loads are acting in the individual foot joints from the phalanges to calcaneus and talus during different brake scenarios. The Glasgow-Maastricht AnyBody Foot Model with 26 separate segments, connected by joints, ligaments and muscles was used inside the AnyBody Modeling System to compute individual mid foot joint loads. The amount, the direction of the force and additionally also the load insertion point was varied for several simulations. Figure 1: Seated musculoskeletal body model with applied brake force and forces for the lateral, intermediate and medial cuneiform-navicular joint for two different brake forces. The simulation showed that for the different brake scenarios, different muscles will be activated in the human and therefore different loads are apply in the fore-and mid-foot, respectively. The torso of the subject was assumed to be fixed in the seat. Further studies are ongoing to simulate the seat as an elastic element that allows different H-point locations according to the different loadings in the foot from the brake pedal using a new inverse dynamics analysis method called force-dependent kinematics.}, language = {en} }