Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32951205›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2021

A mechanistic approach for the calculation of intervertebral mobility in mammals based on vertebrae osteometry.

Ruslan I Belyaev, Alexander N Kuznetsov, Natalya E Prilepskaya

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Chiropractic Treatment of Dairy Cows.Veterinary sciences · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruslan I BelyaevA.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation.ORCID 0000-0002-0499-1898
Alexander N KuznetsovBorissiak Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation.ORCID 0000-0002-9928-6955
Natalya E PrilepskayaA.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution · RUInstitute of Paleontology A A Borisyak · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we develop and validate an osteometry-based mechanistic approach to calculation of available range of motion (aROM) in presacral intervertebral joints in sagittal bending (SB), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Our basic assumption was the existence of a mechanistic interrelation between the geometry of zygapophysial articular facets and aROM. Trigonometric formulae are developed for aROM calculation, of which the general principle is that the angle of rotation is given by the ratio of the arc length of motion to the radius of this arc. We tested a number of alternative formulae against available in vitro data to identify the most suitable geometric ratios and coefficients for accurate calculation. aROM values calculated with the developed formulae show significant correlation with in vitro data in SB, LB, and AR (Pearson r = 0.900) in the reference mammals (man, sheep, pig, cow). It was found that separate formulae for different zygapophysial facet types (radial (Rf), tangential (Tf), radial with a lock (RfL)) give significantly greater accuracy in aROM calculation than the formulae for the presacral spine as a whole and greater accuracy than the separate formulae for different spine regions (cervical, thoracic, lumbar). The advantage of the facet-specific formulae over the region-specific ones shows that the facet type is a more reliable indicator of the spine mobility than the presence or absence of ribs. The greatest gain in calculation accuracy with the facet-specific formulae is characteristic in AR aROM. The most important theoretical outcome is that the evolutionary differentiation of the zygapophysial facets in mammals, that is the emergence of Tf joints in the rib cage area of the spine, was more likely associated with the development of AR rather than with SB mobility and, hence, with cornering rather than with forward galloping. The AR aROM can be calculated with the formulae common for man, sheep, pig, and cow. However, the SB aROM of the human spine is best calculated with different coefficient values in the formulae than those for studied artiodactyls. The most suitable coefficient values indicate that the zygapophysial articular facets tend to slide past each other to a greater extent in the human thoracolumbar spine rather than in artiodactyls. Due to this, artiodactyls retain relatively greater facet overlap in extremely flexed and extremely extended spine positions, which may be more crucial for their quadrupedal gallop than for human bipedal locomotion. The SB, LB, and AR aROMs are quite separate in respect of the formulae structure in the cervical region (radial facet type). However, throughout the thoracolumbar spine (tangential and radial with lock facets), the formulae for LB and AR are basically similar differing in coefficient values only. This means that, in the thoracolumbar spine, the greater the LB aROM, the greater the AR aROM, and vice versa. The approach developed promises a wide osteological screening of extant and extinct mammals to study the sex, age, geographical variations, and disorders.

Indexed as

AnimalsCattleHumansIntervertebral DiscRange of Motion, ArticularRotationSheepSpineSwineWeight-BearingZygapophyseal Jointartiodactylafacet typeshuman spinemobility calculationrange of motionzygapophyses

Identifiers

PMID32951205
PMCPMC7754917
OpenAlexW3087466915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.