Biomechanical study of weightlifting behavior in L5 lumbar spondylolysis using finite element simulation
Abstract
Lumbar spondylolysis is related to weightlifting. The biomechanics of lumbar spondylolysis in weightlifting and the connection between lumbar spondylolysis and muscles are still unclear. Therefore, this study clarified the influence of decreased muscle strength on lumbar spondylolysis through finite element (FE) analysis. We used computed tomography to scan the L1-S1 segment of the patient and constructed a three-dimensional FE model. Apply a moment of 7.5 N·m and a weight of 280 N at the top of L1 after fixing the sacroiliac joint. The dumbbell weight was set to 15 kg. Apply muscle strength and follower loads representing the muscles of the back and abdomen in the FE model. The back muscle strength was reduced to 50%. The results showed that L4 with incomplete lumbar spondylolysis under decreased muscle strength and L5 with incomplete lumbar spondylolysis under normal muscle strength had the higher range of motion (ROM) in the flexion stage (45°). The ROM of L4 was affected by the decreased muscle strength, and the ROM of L5 was affected by the lumbar movement. L4 and L5 of incomplete lumbar spondylolysis showed the greatest stress range changes in the lifting and the final stage, respectively. Stresses at L4 and L5 are affected by the defect and decreased muscle strength. This study shows that the ROM of incomplete spondylolysis is vulnerable to flexion during weightlifting. Decreased muscle strength leads to increased stress on the defect and adjacent segments in the lifting and final stages, which might aggravate the fracture.
References
1. Mohile NV, Kuczmarski AS, Lee D, et al. Spondylolysis and isthmic spondylolisthesis: A guide to diagnosis and management. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 2022; 35(6): 1204−1216.
2. Liu Z, Tsai TY, Wang S, et al. Sagittal plane rotation center of lower lumbar spine during a dynamic weight-lifting activity. Journal of biomechanics. 2016; 49(3): 371−375.
3. Zhang X. Weightlifter Lumbar Physiology Health Influence Factor Analysis of Sports Medicine. The Open Biomedical Engineering Journal. 2015; 9: 266.
4. Milone MT, Bernstein J, Freedman KB, et al. There is no need to avoid resistance training (weight lifting) until physeal closure. The Physician and sportsmedicine. 2013; 41(4): 101−105.
5. Lawrence KJ, Elser T, Stromberg R. Lumbar spondylolysis in the adolescent athlete. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2016; 20: 56−60.
6. Zwierzchowska A, Gaweł E, Maszczyk A, et al. The importance of extrinsic and intrinsic compensatory mechanisms to body posture of competitive athletes a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2022; 12(1): 8808.
7. Roussouly P, Pinheiro-Franco JL. Sagittal parameters of the spine: Biomechanical approach. European Spine Journal. 2011; 20(Suppl 5): 578.
8. Natarajan RN, Lavender SA, An HA, et al. Biomechanical response of a lumbar intervertebral disc to manual lifting activities: A poroelastic finite element model study. Spine. 2008; 33(18): 1958−1965.
9. Zhu R, Niu WX, Zeng ZL, et al. The effects of muscle weakness on degenerative spondylolisthesis: A finite element study. Clinical Biomechanics. 2017; 41: 34−38.
10. McCormick JB, Drusch AS, Lynch DJ, et al. The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During a Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 2023; 18(4): 831.
11. Eltoukhy M, Travascio F, Asfour S, et al. Examination of a lumbar spine biomechanical model for assessing axial compression, shear, and bending moment using selected Olympic lifts. Journal of orthopaedics. 2016; 13(3): 210−219.
12. Wei W. Application of biomechanics in graphic design and ergonomic optimization. Molecular & Cellular Biomechanics. 2025; 22(2): 984−984.
13. Xue Y, Du E, Hou Z. Sports training injuries and prevention measures using big data analysis. Molecular & Cellular Biomechanics. 2025; 22(2): 539.
14. Ramakrishna VA, Chamoli U, Viglione LL, et al. Mild (not severe) disc degeneration is implicated in the progression of bilateral L5 spondylolysis to spondylolisthesis. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2018; 19: 1−11.
15. Wagnac E, Arnoux PJ, Garo A, et al. Finite element analysis of the influence of loading rate on a model of the full lumbar spine under dynamic loading conditions. Medical & biological engineering & computing. 2012; 50: 903−915.
16. Ayturk UM, Puttlitz CM. Parametric convergence sensitivity and validation of a finite element model of the human lumbar spine. Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. 2011; 14(8): 695−705.
17. Rohlmann A, Bauer L, Zander T, et al. Determination of trunk muscle forces for flexion and extension by using a validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and measured in vivo data. Journal of biomechanics. 2006; 39(6): 981−989.
18. Chen CS, Cheng CK. Stress analysis of the disc adjacent to interbody fusion in lumbar spine. Medical engineering & physics. 2001; 23(7): 485−493.
19. Rohlmann A, Neller S, Claes L, et al. Influence of a follower load on intradiscal pressure and intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine. 2001; 26(24): E557−E561.
20. Huang YP, Du CF, Cheng CK, et al. Preserving posterior complex can prevent adjacent segment disease following posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgeries: A finite element analysis. PloS one. 2016; 11(11): e0166452.
21. Renner SM, Natarajan RN, Patwardhan AG, et al. Novel model to analyze the effect of a large compressive follower pre-load on range of motions in a lumbar spine. Journal of biomechanics. 2007; 40(6): 1326−1332.
22. Viceconti M, Olsen S, Nolte LP, et al. Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element simulations. Clinical biomechanics. 2005; 20(5): 451−454.
23. Jones AC, Wilcox RK. Finite element analysis of the spine: Towards a framework of verification, validation and sensitivity analysis. Medical engineering & physics. 2008; 30(10): 1287−1304.
24. Fagan MJ, Julian S, Siddall DJ, et al. Patient-specific spine models. Part 1: Finite element analysis of the lumbar intervertebral disc-a material sensitivity study. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine. 2002; 216(5): 299−314.
25. Jebaseelan DD, Jebaraj C, Yoganandan N, et al. Sensitivity studies of pediatric material properties on juvenile lumbar spine responses using finite element analysis. Medical & biological engineering & computing. 2012; 50: 515−522.
26. Fares MY, Fares J, Salhab HA, et al. Low back pain among weightlifting adolescents and young adults. Cureus. 2020; 12(7).
27. Patterson CS, Lohman E, Asavasopon S, et al. The influence of hip extensor and lumbar spine extensor strength on lumbar spine loading during a squat lift. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology. 2022; 62: 102620.
28. Heidari E, Arjmand N, Kahrizi S. Comparisons of lumbar spine loads and kinematics in healthy and non-specific low back pain individuals during unstable lifting activities. Journal of Biomechanics. 2022; 144: 111344.
29. Rimmele P, Steinhilber B, Rieger MA, et al. Motor variability during a repetitive lifting task is impaired by wearing a passive back-support exoskeleton. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2023; 68: 102739.
30. Zhang C, Song Y, Zhang Q, et al. Biomechanical study of symmetric bending and lifting behavior in weightlifter with lumbar L4-L5 disc herniation and physiological straightening using finite element simulation. Bioengineering. 2024; 11(8): 825.
31. Azari F, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A, et al. A combined passive and active musculoskeletal model study to estimate L4-L5 load sharing. Journal of biomechanics. 2018; 70: 157−165.
32. Haj-Ali R, Wolfson R, Masharawi Y. A patient specific computational biomechanical model for the entire lumbosacral spinal unit with imposed spondylolysis. Clinical Biomechanics. 2019; 68: 37−44.
33. Kim HJ, Yang JH, Chang DG, et al. Significance of paraspinal muscle quality in risk between single and multiple osteoporotic vertebral fractures. European Spine Journal. 2023; 32(5): 1763−1770.
34. Dolan P, Adams MA. Recent advances in lumbar spinal mechanics and their significance for modelling. Clinical Biomechanics. 2001; 16: S8−S16.
35. Lomelí-Rivas A, Larrinúa-Betancourt JE. Biomechanics of the lumbar spine: A clinical approach. Acta ortopedica Mexicana. 2019; 33(3): 185−191.
36. Baik SM, Cynn HS, Yi CH, et al. Effect of side-sling plank exercise on trunk and hip muscle activation in subjects with gluteus medius weakness. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. 2022; 35(4): 849−857.
37. Raj PP. Intervertebral disc: Anatomy-physiology-pathophysiology-treatment. Pain Practice. 2008; 8(1): 18−44.
38. Naserkhaki S, Jaremko JL, El-Rich M. Effects of inter-individual lumbar spine geometry variation on load-sharing: Geometrically personalized Finite Element study. Journal of biomechanics. 2016; 49(13): 2909−2917.
39. Wu J, Han Y, Xu H, et al. Biomechanical comparison of spinal column shortening-a finite element study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022; 23(1): 1122.
40. Liang, J. Analyzing biomechanical force characteristics in sports performance monitoring using biochemical sensors and internet of things devices. Molecular & Cellular Biomechanics. 2025; 22(2): 727.
Copyright (c) 2025 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright on all articles published in this journal is retained by the author(s), while the author(s) grant the publisher as the original publisher to publish the article.
Articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which means they can be shared, adapted and distributed provided that the original published version is cited.
Submit a Paper
