TY - JOUR A1 - Beimler, Josef A1 - Leißl, Caroline A1 - Ebner, Lena A1 - Elsner, Michael A1 - Mühlbauer, Gerhard A1 - Kohlert, Dieter A1 - Schubert, Martin J. W. A1 - Weiß, Andreas P. A1 - Sterner, Michael A1 - Raith, Thomas A1 - Afranseder, Martin A1 - Krapf, Tobias A1 - Mottok, Jürgen A1 - Siemers, Christian A1 - Großmann, Benjamin A1 - Höcherl, Johannes A1 - Schlegl, Thomas A1 - Schneider, Ralph A1 - Milaev, Johannes A1 - Rampelt, Christina A1 - Roduner, Christian A1 - Glowa, Christoph A1 - Bachl, Christoph A1 - Schliekmann, Claus A1 - Gnan, Alfons A1 - Grill, Martin A1 - Ruhland, Karl A1 - Piehler, Thomas A1 - Friers, Daniel A1 - Wels, Harald A1 - Pflug, Kenny A1 - Kucera, Markus A1 - Waas, Thomas A1 - Schlachetzki, Felix A1 - Boy, Sandra A1 - Pemmerl, Josef A1 - Leis, Alexander A1 - Welsch, Andreas F.X. A1 - Graf, Franz A1 - Zenger, Gerhard A1 - Volbert, Klaus A1 - Waas, Thomas A1 - Scherzinger, Stefanie A1 - Klettke, Meike A1 - Störl, Uta A1 - Heyl, C. A1 - Boldenko, A. A1 - Monkman, Gareth J. A1 - Kujat, Richard A1 - Briem, Ulrich A1 - Hierl, Stefan A1 - Talbot, Sebastian A1 - Schmailzl, Anton A1 - Ławrowski, Robert Damian A1 - Prommesberger, Christian A1 - Langer, Christoph A1 - Dams, Florian A1 - Schreiner, Rupert A1 - Valentino, Piergiorgio A1 - Romano, Marco A1 - Ehrlich, Ingo A1 - Furgiuele, Franco A1 - Gebbeken, Norbert A1 - Eisenried, Michael A1 - Jungbauer, Bastian A1 - Hutterer, Albert A1 - Bauhuber, Michael A1 - Mikrievskij, Andreas A1 - Argauer, Monika A1 - Hummel, Helmut A1 - Lechner, Alfred A1 - Liebetruth, Thomas A1 - Schumm, Michael A1 - Joseph, Saskia A1 - Reschke, Michael A1 - Soska, Alexander A1 - Schroll-Decker, Irmgard A1 - Putzer, Michael A1 - Rasmussen, John A1 - Dendorfer, Sebastian A1 - Weber, Tim A1 - Al-Munajjed, Amir Andreas A1 - Verkerke, Gijsbertus Jacob A1 - Renkawitz, Tobias A1 - Haug, Sonja A1 - Rudolph, Clarissa A1 - Zeitler, Annika A1 - Schaubeck, Simon A1 - Steffens, Oliver A1 - Rechenauer, Christian A1 - Schulz-Brize, Thekla A1 - Fleischmann, Florian A1 - Kusterle, Wolfgang A1 - Beer, Anne A1 - Wagner, Bernd A1 - Neidhart, Thomas ED - Baier, Wolfgang T1 - Forschungsbericht 2013 T3 - Forschungsberichte der OTH Regensburg - 2013 Y1 - 2014 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:898-opus4-7990 CY - Regensburg ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Galibarov, Pavel E. A1 - Al-Munajjed, Amir Andreas A1 - Dendorfer, Sebastian A1 - Christensen, Soeren Toerholm A1 - Rasmussen, John T1 - The effect of varying the stiffness of spinal fusion devices on the adjacent levels using multibody dynamics simulation T2 - Orthopaedic Proceedings N2 - 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. Y1 - 2011 VL - 94-B IS - SUPP_XL01 Sep 2012 SP - 2 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Weber, Tim A1 - Al-Munajjed, Amir Andreas A1 - Verkerke, Gijsbertus Jacob A1 - Dendorfer, Sebastian A1 - Renkawitz, Tobias T1 - Influence of minimally invasive total hip replacement on hip reaction forces and their orientations JF - Journal of Orthopaedic Research N2 - 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. KW - THA KW - THR KW - Biomechanics KW - Conventional surgery KW - Early recovery KW - Hüftgelenkprothese KW - Minimal-invasive Chirurgie KW - Biomechanik Y1 - 2014 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22710 VL - 32 IS - 12 SP - 1680 EP - 1687 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Al-Munajjed, Amir Andreas A1 - Nolte, Daniel A1 - Rasmussen, John A1 - Dendorfer, Sebastian T1 - Force distribution in the foot during braking – a musculoskeletal approach T2 - Human Modeling Symposium 2014, Munich, Germany N2 - 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. Y1 - 2014 UR - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281229902_Force_distribution_in_the_foot_during_braking_-a_musculoskeletal_approach ER -