Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 3;11(3):398.
doi: 10.3390/biology11030398.

Application of Wearable Sensors Technology for Lumbar Spine Kinematic Measurements during Daily Activities following Microdiscectomy Due to Severe Sciatica

Affiliations

Application of Wearable Sensors Technology for Lumbar Spine Kinematic Measurements during Daily Activities following Microdiscectomy Due to Severe Sciatica

Athanasios Triantafyllou et al. Biology (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: The recurrence rate of lumbar spine microdiscectomies (rLSMs) is estimated to be 5-15%. Lumbar spine flexion (LSF) of more than 10° is mentioned as the most harmful load to the intervertebral disc that could lead to recurrence during the first six postoperative weeks. The purpose of this study is to quantify LSFs, following LSM, at the period of six weeks postoperatively.

Methods: LSFs were recorded during the daily activities of 69 subjects for 24 h twice per week, using Inertial Measurement Units (IMU).

Results: The mean number of more than 10 degrees of LSFs per hour were: 41.3/h during the 1st postoperative week (P.W.) (29.9% healthy subjects-H.S.), 2nd P.W. 60.1/h (43.5% H.S.), 3rd P.W. 74.2/h (53.7% H.S.), 4th P.W. 82.9/h (60% H.S.), 5th P.W. 97.3/h (70.4% H.S.) and 6th P.W. 105.5/h (76.4% H.S.).

Conclusions: LSFs constitute important risk factors for rLDH. Our study records the lumbar spine kinematic pattern of such patients for the first time during their daily activities. Patients' data report less sagittal plane movements than healthy subjects. In vitro studies should be carried out, replicating our results to identify if such a kinematic pattern could cause rLDH. Furthermore, IMU biofeedback capabilities could protect patients from such harmful movements.

Keywords: IMU technology; lumbar microdiscectomy; lumbar spine biomechanics; spine biomechanics; wearable sensors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Wearable sensors application at the lumbar spine. Software reproduction–kinematic data recording.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Biomechanical behavior of lumbar spine in the sagittal plane during stand up followed by ten steps walking in the calibration procedure.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores pre and postoperatively.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The number of more than 10 degrees of Lumbar Spine Flexions (LSFs) per hour for healthy subjects.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The number of more than 10 degrees of Lumbar Spine Flexions (LSFs) per hour for operated subjects at the 1st postoperative week.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The number of more than 10 degrees of Lumbar Spine Flexions (LSFs) per hour for operated subjects at the 2nd postoperative week.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The number of more than 10 degrees of Lumbar Spine Flexions (LSFs) per hour for operated subjects at the 3rd postoperative week.
Figure 8
Figure 8
The number of more than 10 degrees of Lumbar Spine Flexions (LSFs) per hour for operated subjects at the 4th postoperative week.
Figure 9
Figure 9
The number of more than 10 degrees of Lumbar Spine Flexions (LSFs) per hour for operated subjects at the 5th postoperative week.
Figure 10
Figure 10
The number of more than 10 degrees of Lumbar Spine Flexions (LSFs) per hour for operated subjects at the 6th postoperative week.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Results presenting the number of lumbar spine flexions (more than 10 degrees) for healthy subjects (blue line) and operated patients (orange bars).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Percentage evolution of lumbar spine kinematics postoperatively compared to healthy, in relation to postoperative week.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Davis H. Increasing Rates of Cervical and Lumbar Spine Surgery in the United States, 1979–1990. Spine. 1994;19:1117–1122. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199405001-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Deyo R.A., Gray D.T., Kreuter W., Mirza S., Martin B.I. United States Trends in Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Conditions. Spine. 2005;30:1441–1445. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000166503.37969.8a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weinstein J.N., Lurie J.D., Olson P.R., Bronner K.K., Fisher E.S. United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine. 2006;31:2707–2714. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000248132.15231.fe. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deyo R.A., Mirza S.K., Martin B.I., Kreuter W., Goodman D.C., Jarvik J.G. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010;303:1259–1265. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.338. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ugiliweneza B., Kong M., Nosova K., Huang K.T., Babu R., Lad S.P., Boakye M. Spinal surgery: Variations in health care costs and implications for episode-based bundled payments. Spine. 2014;39:1235–1242. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000378. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources