TY - JOUR
T1 - Architectural analysis of human abdominal wall muscles
T2 - Implications for mechanical function
AU - Brown, Stephen H.M.
AU - Ward, Samuel R.
AU - Cook, Mark S.
AU - Lieber, Richard L.
PY - 2011/3/1
Y1 - 2011/3/1
N2 - Study Design. Cadaveric analysis of human abdominal muscle architecture. Objective. To quantify the architectural properties of rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), and transverse abdominis (TrA), and model mechanical function in light of these new data. Summary of Background Data. Knowledge of muscle architecture provides the structural basis for predicting muscle function. Abdominal muscles greatly affect spine loading, stability, injury prevention, and rehabilitation; however, their architectural properties are unknown. Methods. Abdominal muscles from 11 elderly human cadavers were removed intact, separated into regions, and microdissected for quantification of physiologic cross-sectional area, fascicle length and sarcomere length. From these data, sarcomere operating length ranges were calculated. Results. IO had the largest physiologic cross-sectional area and RA the smallest, and would thus generate the largest and smallest isometric forces, respectively. RA had the longest fascicle length followed by EO, and would thus be capable of generating force over the widest range of lengths. Measured sarcomere lengths, in the postmortem neutral spine posture, were significantly longer in RA and EO (3.29 ± 0.07 and 3.18 ± 0.11 μm) compared to IO and TrA (2.61 ± 0.06 and 2.58 ± 0.05 μm) (P < 0.0001). Biomechanical modeling predicted that RA, EO and TrA act at optimal forcegenerating length in the midrange of lumbar spine flexion, where IO can generate approximately 90% of its maximum force. Conclusion. These data provide clinically relevant insights into the ability of the abdominal wall muscles to generate force and change length throughout the lumbar spine range of motion. This will impact the understanding of potential postures in which the forcegenerating and spine stabilizing ability of these muscles become compromised, which can guide exercise/rehabilitation develop ment and prescription. Future work should explore the mechanical interactions among these muscles and their relationship to spine health and function.
AB - Study Design. Cadaveric analysis of human abdominal muscle architecture. Objective. To quantify the architectural properties of rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), and transverse abdominis (TrA), and model mechanical function in light of these new data. Summary of Background Data. Knowledge of muscle architecture provides the structural basis for predicting muscle function. Abdominal muscles greatly affect spine loading, stability, injury prevention, and rehabilitation; however, their architectural properties are unknown. Methods. Abdominal muscles from 11 elderly human cadavers were removed intact, separated into regions, and microdissected for quantification of physiologic cross-sectional area, fascicle length and sarcomere length. From these data, sarcomere operating length ranges were calculated. Results. IO had the largest physiologic cross-sectional area and RA the smallest, and would thus generate the largest and smallest isometric forces, respectively. RA had the longest fascicle length followed by EO, and would thus be capable of generating force over the widest range of lengths. Measured sarcomere lengths, in the postmortem neutral spine posture, were significantly longer in RA and EO (3.29 ± 0.07 and 3.18 ± 0.11 μm) compared to IO and TrA (2.61 ± 0.06 and 2.58 ± 0.05 μm) (P < 0.0001). Biomechanical modeling predicted that RA, EO and TrA act at optimal forcegenerating length in the midrange of lumbar spine flexion, where IO can generate approximately 90% of its maximum force. Conclusion. These data provide clinically relevant insights into the ability of the abdominal wall muscles to generate force and change length throughout the lumbar spine range of motion. This will impact the understanding of potential postures in which the forcegenerating and spine stabilizing ability of these muscles become compromised, which can guide exercise/rehabilitation develop ment and prescription. Future work should explore the mechanical interactions among these muscles and their relationship to spine health and function.
KW - abdominal muscles
KW - force-length relationship
KW - lumbar spine
KW - muscle
KW - stability
KW - transversus abdominis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952310285&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952310285&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d12ed7
DO - 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d12ed7
M3 - Article
C2 - 21325932
AN - SCOPUS:79952310285
SN - 0362-2436
VL - 36
SP - 355
EP - 362
JO - Spine
JF - Spine
IS - 5
ER -