2012 27 4 Journal of TUS Vol.27 No.4 2012 333~337 Doctor Forum L 5/S 1 L 5/S 1 5.0 cm L 5/S 1 L 5/S 1 L 5/S 1 G 804.21 A 1005-0000 2012 04-333- 05 Characteristics of Lumbosacral Joint Stress under the Static Load Homework from Upright to Dorsiflexion Position LUO Jiong School of PE Southwest University Chongqing 400715 China Abstract: According to related material of the clinical biomechanical this research choose L5/S1 joint center for research emphases and mechanical model was established by changing human body posture which shows that when the normal human was in an balance with upright and relax position the isometric contraction down about wall muscular of before and after spinal can not play an "soft pillar" role to L5/S1 disc center. Spinal wall muscle strength and joint center stress of L5/S1 are impacted not only by pulling Angle of wall muscle but also are more influence by the arm of force of front wall muscle. when arm is smaller less than 5.0cm before and after wall muscular strength and joint stress of L5/S1 have declined following pulling Angle increasing and there is exist a best position which make justly muscular wall strength impose soft pillar effect on the L5/S1 joint center. Appropriate using of chest and abdominal pressures also can not only ensure body balance but also obtain "soft pillar" effect on the L5/S1 joint and at the same time spinal muscular wall is needed simply smaller force.in other factor unchanged the flexor a condition of human spine shall have much more before and after wall strength and stress of L5/S1 places than upright position which hints people to avoid proneness to bend over while daily work especially when the people proneness to move things which more should reduce heavy torque as far as possible. Key words: static homework lumbosacral joint stress characteristics soft pillar CT MRI X CT MRI [1-4] L 5 /S 1 1 1.1 L 5 /S 1 1 5 1 L 5 /S 1 L 5 /S 1 L 5 /L 4 85%~95% [4-6] L 5 /S 1 lumbosacral disc 5 1 2 L 5 /S 1 2011-09- 08 2012-06- 15 2012-06- 20 1966-400715
334 Journal of TUS Vol.27 No.4 2012 2012 27 4 L 5 /S 1 64% [2-3] W 1 =376.32 N CT MRI [2 3] [2-3] L 5 /S 1 X CT MRI P m1 Y d 1 =10 cm 3 L 5 /S 1 P m2 L 5 /S 1 d 2 1 30 5 d 2 5.0 cm [7] 30~40 5.5 cm 7.0 cm 1.2 15% [9] d 2 5.5 cm L 5 /S 1 L 5 /S 1 2.1 W=0 F A =0 P m1 P m2 θ 1 θ 2 0 W 1 b L 5 /S 1 0.02 m θ=90 O L 5 /S 1 P m1 =0 P m2 F A 2 1 2 3 L 5 /S 1 P m2 =132.04 N=0.35W 1 F c =508 N=1.35W 1 L 5 /S 1 F c Y L 5 /S 1 O Y X θ 1 θ 2 F S [8 9] F A L 5 /S 1 W 1 W W 1 W L 5 /S 1 O b h d 1 d 2 1 ΣF X =0 圯 F s +P m1 sin θ1 +(W 1 +W)cosθ-P m2 sinθ 2 =0 1 ΣF Y =0 圯 F c -P m2 cosθ 2 +P m1 cosθ 1 +F A -(W 1 +W)sinθ=0 2 ΣM=0 圯 F A d+p m1 d 1 cosθ 1 +P m2 d 2 cosθ 2 -W 1 b-wh=0 3 2 Figure 2 Body lumbosacral joint Stress when it is balanced upright regardless of load conditions Figure 1 1 chart of lumbosacral joint Stress analysis 0.35 W 1 L 5 /S 1 1.35 W 1 L 5 /S 1 O P m1 P m2 =0 L 5 /S 1 2 Q=60 Kg
Journal of TUS Vol.27 No.4 2012 335 cm [11] 1 2 3 2.2 W=0 FA=01 3 4 θ 1 θ 2 P m1 P m2 F c θ1 θ2 P m1 P m2 θ 1 14 16 θ 2 9 11 F c -1 000 N P m1 P n2 θ 1 θ 2 0 P m1 2.66 W 1-500 N 1.33 W 1 F c θ 1 >θ 2 [10] θ 1 15 θ 2 10 L 5 /S 1 F c =0 14 θ 1 16 9 θ 2 11 d 2 d 2 4.5 cm d 2 8.0 2 5 P m1 P m2 F c d 2 θ 1 θ 2 3 d 2 P m1 P m2 L 5 /S 1 4 d 2 P m1 P m2 L 5 /S 1 5 d 2 P m1 P m2 Fc θ 1 Fc θ 2 L 5 /S 1 Fc d 2 Figure 3 When d 2 was identified as a Figure 4 When d 2 was identified as a Figure 5 When d 2 was identified as a certain value the change curve the Pulling certain value the change curve the Pulling certain value the change curve the Pulling force of P m1 and P m2 and L 5 /S 1 stress Fc force of P m1 and P m2 and L 5 /S 1 stress Fc force of P m1 and P m2 and L 5 /S 1 stress Fc respectively with θ 1 respectively with θ 2 respectively with d 2 θ 1 =15 θ 2 =10 d 2 5.0 cm P m1 P m2 F c d 2 P m1 P m2 F c d 2 P m1 P m2 F c d 2 =5.5 cm P m1 =474.45 N=1.26W 1 P m2 =707.17 N=1.88W 1 L 5 / [13] S 1 F c =-778.42 N=-2.07W 1 400~600 N W 1 0.85 W 1 1.3 W 1-485 N d=5.5 cm d 2 6.3 cm F c -6680.8 N d 2 6.7 cm F c 7 692.6 N [12] 5 880 N d 2 6.3 cm θ1 θ2 d 2 2.3 W=0 F A 0 3 Lumbar discherniation [14] LDH ZHONG [15] MORGAN [16]
336 Journal of TUS Vol.27 No.4 2012 2012 27 4 P A 90 mmhg [14] CHAFFIN [17] F m1 sin15 -F m2 sin10 =0 F c +F m2 cos10 +F m1 cos15 +F A -W 1 =0 4 5 F m1 0.1cos15 +F A 0.07-F m2 0.055cos10 -W 1 0.02=0 6 y W 1 b=0.25 m d CHAFFIN [18] 15 cm P m1 =468-4.41 F A P m2 =698-6.57 F A 7 8 F A d=7 cm d=15 2.4 W=0 F A 0 P m1 =0 45 P m2 F s +W 1 cos45 =0 F c +P m2 +Fa-W 1 sin45 =0 10 11 F c =9.73 F A -763 9 7 8 F A F A 0.15+P m2 0.055-W 1 0.25=0 12 P m1 P m2 ZHONG [15] MORGAN [16] P m2 =1710-2.73F A 13 F c =1976-3.73F A 14 F A 106 N P m1 P m2 0 F c =269.54 N 0.716 W 1 P m2 =264+0.73F c 15 0 P m2 =1 710N F c =1 976 N P m2 2.45 F c 9 F c F A FA 2.59 F A =50 N 100 N 150 N 465 P m2 F c cm 2 P A 90 mmhg [17-18] W 1 F A =550 N 7 8 9 P m1 =-1957.5 N=-5.20 W 1 P m2 =2 913.02 N=-7.75 W 1 F c =4588.5 N=12.19 W 1 13 14 15 F c W 1 12.19 P m2 F c F A P m2 F c L 5 /S 1 KRAG [18] L 5 /S 1 P m1 P m2 L 5 /S 1 P m1 P m2 3 L 5 /S 1 1 L 5 /S 1 2 L 5 /S 1 L 5 /S 1 L 5 /S 1 L 5 /S 1 0 1 3 L 5 /S 1 2 d 2 d 2 5.0 cm L 5 /S 1
Journal of TUS Vol.27 No.4 2012 337 0 d 2 [8] ADAMS M A MCNALLY D S WAGSTAFF J et al. Abdominal stress d 2 6.3 cm L 5 /S 1 concentrations in lumbar inter vertebral discs following damage to the vertebral bodies A cause of disc failure [J]. European spine journal 1993 d 2 1 214-221. [9] Epstein B S. The Spine [M]... 4 1987. [10] KONG W Z GOEL V K GILBERTSON L G. Prediction of biomechanical F A parameters in the lumbar spine during static sagittal plane lifting [J]. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 1998 120 2 273-280. [11] FATHALLAH F A MARRAS W S PARNIANPOUR M. The role of 5 L 5 / complex simultaneous trunk motions in the risk of occupation related S 1 low back disorders [J].Spine 1998 23 9 1 035-1 042. [12] ARJMAND N SHIRAZIDL A. Model and in vivo studies on human trunk load partitioning and stability in isometric forward flexions [J]. Journal of Biomechanics 2006 39 3 510-521. [1] RHO J Y HOBATHO M C ASHMAN RB. Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone [J].Medical Engineering and Physics 1995 17 5 347-355. [2]. x [J]. Ergonomics 1988 9 33-38. 1996 16 7 435. [3]. [J]. 1996 2 1 39-41. [4] ZANDER T ROHLMANN A CALISSE J. Estimation of muscle forces in the lumbar spine during upper- body inclination [J].Clinical Biomechanics S0268-0033 2001 16 S1 73-80. [5]. [J]. 2004 25 2 MRI lumbar spine with a new cageusing a topology optimization method [J]. 73. location measurements from CT Scans of 96 Older Women [J].Clin. [6]. [J]. Biomech. 1990 5 1 9-16. 2004 14 6 364. [18] KRAG M H GILBERTSON L POPE M H. Intra abdominal and [7]. [J]. interthoracic pressure effects upon load bearing of the spine [M]. las 2004 3 156. [13] SILVA M J WANG C KEAVENY T M et al. Direct and computed tomography thickness measurement of the human lumbar vertebral shell and endplate[j].bone 1994 15 4 409-414. [14] DAVIS P R STUBBS D A. Force limits in Manual Work [J].Applied [15] ZHONG Z C WEI S H WANG J P et al. Finite element analysis of the Medical Engineering and Physics 2006 28 1 90-98. [16] MORGAN EF BAYRAKTAR HH KEAVENY T M. Trabecular bone modulus density relationships depend on anatomic site [J].Journal of Biomechanics 2003 36 7 897-904. [17] CHAFFIN DB REDFERN M S ERIG M et al.lumbar Size and Vegas NV 1985.