ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

Figure 1 Finite element model of the spino-pelvic complex with muscles shown in the
anteroposterior direction. Dark green represents bony structure and red represents
muscle fascicles.
4. RESULTS
The IVRs for each segment of the FEMSPC differed only slightly from the
corresponding values of the IS model for flexion (Fig. 2). For standing, the overall IVRs
of the FEMSPC were always less than 1° while the corresponding values were 0 in the
IS model. The IDP of the L4-L5 intervertebral disc in both the FEMSPC and the FE
model with a follower load plus a moment showed a trend similar to that of the in vivo
curve measured by Wilke et al. (Fig. 3).
IVR in degree
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
T12-L1 L1-L2 L2-L3 L3-L4 L4-L5 L5-S1
3
FEMSPC
Fig. 2 Comparison of the intervertebral rotation (IVR) of the finite element model of the
spino-pelvic complex (FEMSPC) with the corresponding values of the inverse static (IS)
model for flexion.
IS