Background: Chronic back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Although its causes can be diverse, biomechanical factors leading to spinal degeneration are considered a central issue. Numerical biomechanical models can identify critical factors and, thus, help predict impending spinal degeneration. However, spinal biomechanics are subject to significant interindividual variations. Therefore, in order to achieve meaningful findings on potential pathologies, predictive models have to take into account individual characteristics. To make these highly individualized models suitable for systematic studies on spinal biomechanics and clinical practice, the automation of data processing and modeling itself is inevitable. The purpose of this study was to validate an automatically generated patient-specific musculoskeletal model of the spine simulating static loading tasks.Methods: CT imaging data from two patients with non-degenerative spines were processed using an automated deep learning-based segmentation pipeline. In a semi-automated process with minimal user interaction, we generated patient-specific musculoskeletal models and simulated various static loading tasks. To validate the model, calculated vertebral loadings of the lumbar spine and muscle forces were compared with in vivo data from the literature. Finally, results from both models were compared to assess the potential of our process for interindividual analysis.Results: Calculated vertebral loads and muscle activation overall stood in close correlation with data from the literature. Compression forces normalized to upright standing deviated by a maximum of 16% for flexion and 33% for lifting tasks. Interindividual comparison of compression, as well as lateral and anterior–posterior shear forces, could be linked plausibly to individual spinal alignment and bodyweight.Conclusion: We developed a method to generate patient-specific musculoskeletal models of the lumbar spine. The models were able to calculate loads of the lumbar spine for static activities with respect to individual biomechanical properties, such as spinal alignment, bodyweight distribution, and ligament and muscle insertion points. The process is automated to a large extent, which makes it suitable for systematic investigation of spinal biomechanics in large datasets.

How back pain is related to intervertebral disc degeneration, spinal loading or sports-related overuse remains an unanswered question of biomechanics. Coupled MBS and FEM simulations can provide a holistic view of the spine by considering both the overall kinematics and kinetics of the spine and the inner stress distribution of flexible components. We reviewed studies that included MBS and FEM co-simulations of the spine. Thereby, we classified the studies into unidirectional and bidirectional co-simulation, according to their data exchange methods. Several studies have demonstrated that using unidirectional co-simulation models provides useful insights into spinal biomechanics, although synchronizing the two distinct models remains a key challenge, often requiring extensive manual intervention. The use of a bidirectional co-simulation features an iterative, automated process with a constant data exchange between integrated subsystems. It reduces manual corrections of vertebra positions or reaction forces and enables detailed modeling of dynamic load cases. Bidirectional co-simulations are thus a promising new research approach for improved spine modeling, as a main challenge in spinal biomechanics is the nonlinear deformation of the intervertebral discs. Future studies will likely include the automated implementation of patient-specific bidirectional co-simulation models using hyper- or poroelastic intervertebral disc FEM models and muscle forces examined by an optimization algorithm in MBS. Applications range from clinical diagnosis to biomechanical analysis of overload situations in sports and injury prediction.

Numerical models of the musculoskeletal system as investigative tools are an integral part of biomechanical and clinical research. While finite element modeling is primarily suitable for the examination of deformation states and internal stresses in flexible bodies, multibody modeling is based on the assumption of rigid bodies, that are connected via joints and flexible elements. This simplification allows the consideration of biomechanical systems from a holistic perspective and thus takes into account multiple influencing factors of mechanical loads. Being the source of major health issues worldwide, the human spine is subject to a variety of studies using these models to investigate and understand healthy and pathological biomechanics of the upper body. In this review, we summarize the current state-of-the-art literature on multibody models of the thoracolumbar spine and identify limitations and challenges related to current modeling approaches.

Introduction: Achieving an adequate level of detail is a crucial part of any modeling process. Thus, oversimplification of complex systems can lead to overestimation, underestimation, and general bias of effects, while elaborate models run the risk of losing validity due to the uncontrolled interaction of multiple influencing factors and error propagation.Methods: We used a validated pipeline for the automated generation of multi-body models of the trunk to create 279 models based on CT data from 93 patients to investigate how different degrees of individualization affect the observed effects of different morphological characteristics on lumbar loads. Specifically, individual parameters related to spinal morphology (thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), and torso height (TH)), as well as torso weight (TW) and distribution, were fully or partly considered in the respective models according to their degree of individualization, and the effect strengths of these parameters on spinal loading were compared between semi- and highly individualized models. T-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (T-SNE) analysis was performed for overarching pattern recognition and multiple regression analyses to evaluate changes in occurring effects and significance.Results: We were able to identify significant effects (p < 0.05) of various morphological parameters on lumbar loads in models with different degrees of individualization. Torso weight and lumbar lordosis showed the strongest effects on compression (β ≈ 0.9) and anterior–posterior shear forces (β ≈ 0.7), respectively. We could further show that the effect strength of individual parameters tended to decrease if more individual characteristics were included in the models.Discussion: The induced variability due to model individualization could only partly be explained by simple morphological parameters. Our study shows that model simplification can lead to an emphasis on individual effects, which needs to be critically assessed with regard to in vivo complexity. At the same time, we demonstrated that individualized models representing a population-based cohort are still able to identify relevant influences on spinal loading while considering a variety of influencing factors and their interactions.