发新话题
打印

骨科人物志——跟贴有奖(30金币-1威望不等)

本主题由 40440658 于 2008-8-17 22:06 解除置顶

骨科人物志——跟贴有奖(30金币-1威望不等)

Marshall R.Urist


不少骨科界的有识之士认为:从对骨科伤病的纯粹机械治疗转向生物治疗,可以称得上是这一外科分支有史以来最重大的进展。而这一进展中最具开创性的人物是Marshall R.Urist,最有价值的突破之一就是骨形态发生蛋白的发现。

1914年,Urist生于芝加哥,在密西根的一个小农场里长大成人。早年在密西根大学学习化学,后来到芝加哥大学去读硕士,正是在这期间,大约是1937年,开始对骨骼再生发生了兴趣。之后他于1941年从约翰霍普金斯大学医学院获得了医学博士学位,而完成了大学教育。

从医学院毕业后,他在巴尔的摩儿童医院接受了一年住院医生教训,于1943年参战,服务于美国陆军的医疗机构。二次大战期间,他是巴顿将军所率坦克部队中的一名矫形外科医生,治疗了许多创伤患者。事后回忆起来,Urist感叹从军经历给了他既难得又无限的机会接触创伤重建问题,对他以后一生的工作都带来深刻的影响。

战后,Urist任盟军最高统帅部的矫形外科顾问,同时担任在德国法兰克福的第97医院的骨科主任。之后仍为五角大楼服务,并在此期间与人合作完成了《二战期间欧洲手术室中的矫形外科学》一书。

在1947年完成了在麻省总医院的骨科住院医生训练后,Urist返回芝加哥大学做博士后,继续从事骨骼再生方面的研究。后来他谋得了一份工作,一边教生理学、一边做骨科临床。在芝加哥期间,他与人合作出版了《骨:骨骼组织的生理学导论》,成为之后数十年里骨生长和修复方面的重要著作。

1954年,他搬到了西海岸,加盟加利福尼亚大学洛杉叽分校(UCLA)的医学院。正是在UCLA的实验室内,他正式开始了自己的骨生长的生物学研究,特别是在分子水平上的研究。

在研究中,Urist发现,如果取一小片皮质骨并使其脱矿化,再植入动物的肌肉中,最终会有骨形成。如果仔细观察就会发现,实际上植入的去矿化骨是会被吸收的,而新骨是在其之上形成的。因此,很显然,植入的骨虽是死的,但其中可能含有某种物质在引导或者促进新骨的形成。随后,Urist继续实验,从皮质骨中获得提取物,并将其置入容腔中。将该容器植入动物体内,由于容器壁允许提取物向外渗透,因此结果是在该容器之外,发现有新骨的形成。

从此以后,他就将大部分时间都放到了怎样从皮质骨中获得提取物来。这一努力直到1963年才有结果,Urist获得了对成骨至关重要的BMP。两年后,他的这一成果发表在《科学》上("Bone: Formation by Autoinduction,"),在全世界范围内掀起了成骨诱导研究的热潮。1997年时,NIH将该文列为对科学的重要贡献。

尽管后来Urist的工作受到到全世界的尊重和关注,但当时在骨科界仍有人对此抱怀疑态度,甚至有人认为他是个疯子,但Urist只是一笑置之,继续埋头于自己的研究。当然,令人遗憾的是,Urist最终也未能确定BMP的化学组成。许多人相信,如果他能做到的话,是会获得诺贝尔奖的。

实际上即便到了今天,骨科界仍未能充分认识Urist研究的潜在价值。当然,Urist一向认为应该只有一种对骨生长至关重要的BMP,而事实上有多种。这多少使临床医生们更加无所适从。而且虽然实验室对BMP的研究结果再三再四的令人鼓舞,但临床应用却明显与之脱节。这一情况直到最近才有所改观。基因重组的BMP-2和BMP-7的安全性和有效性得到了充分的证实,FDA也于2002年7月批准重组BMP-2用于脊柱融合。

除外BMP的研究,Urist还是个热心的教育家。一生发表过超过400篇文章、在世界范围内作过200次学术演讲。并先后担任多个骨科学会的主席。特别值得一提的是,他任CORR杂志主编长达28年,使其从每年出版2期的骨科杂志成长为具有国际声誉的矫形外科月刊。从这个意义上来说,Urist教育了几代骨科医生。

Urist一生得奖众多。晚年时,美国骨科研究会(OSA)于1996年也设立了一个“Marshall Urist Award”,以奖励在骨科基础研究方面作出贡献的学者。

2001年初,Urist因心脏病而去世,享年86岁

TOP

Custom Search
John N. Insall,MD (1930-2000) —— 现代人工膝关节之父

尽管现代人工膝关节置术的历史可以追溯到20世纪40年代,但真正的成功还是从1973年John N. Insall引入骨水泥固定的全髁膝(Total Condylar Knee)开始的。至今,全髁膝已成为评价后续数十种人工膝关节假体的金标准(15年随访,假体存留率94%),Insall因此被许多人称为现代人工膝关节之父。

1930年6月19日,Insall出生在英国的博内茅斯,这是位于南安普敦西南部英吉利海峡入口的一个小村镇。他先后就读于剑桥大学和伦敦医院医学院,1956年毕业。随后他接受了总共5年的医院训练,2年在英国,3年在加拿大蒙特利尔。1961年,他作为纽约特种外科医院(HSS)矫形外科的fellowship人员而来到美国。

当这一奖学金计划完成后,他返回英国,行了两年医。1965年,他重回HSS,当骨科主治医生,之后又成为膝关节组的主任,直到1991年。在1980年-1991年,他还同时担任康奈尔大学医学院的骨科教授。1991年,他与两位同行共同创建了Insall Scott Kelly(ISK)矫形外科与运动医学学院。1996年,他还被聘为阿尔伯特.爱因斯坦医学院矫形外科的临床教授。

显然,Insall杰出贡献中的大部分是在HSS期间完成的。如前所述,他于1973年引入了全髁膝。实际上这绝不是一个一蹴而就的发明,而是经过了多年漫长的努力。Insall很早就开始对膝关节感兴趣,四十多年前就在JBJS上发表过有关截骨治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的文章。因此,全髁膝的问世只能认为是一种最后的水到渠成。虽然全髁膝的成功确立了Insall在骨科史中的地位,但他并未因此罢手。1978年,他又与工程师Albert Burstein博士合作,推出了Insall-Burstein后稳定膝。这一假体一度风靡全球。再之后,他还与人合作,从事旋转平台膝关节假体的研制。还推出了颇受好评的Legacy Knee。另外,在人工膝关节领域,Insall的贡献是全方位的,除外提出手术理念(比如全膝置换术中切除后交叉韧带就是他首先提出来的)、设计假体,他还热衷于配套手术器械的研制、手术切口的设计、膝关节功能的评价、患者的术后随访等等。

与许多杰出的骨科先驱一样,Insall不仅是个优秀的发明家、高超的手术医生,还是一个出类拔萃的教育家。他为重要的医学教科书写过超过35章的内容,发表过150多篇文章。他的代表作《膝关节外科》已经出到第三版,并被译成多种文字,成为这一领域里的经典著作。他是许多全国性学术会议的主要讲演人,也是许多固定性学术讲座的重要报告者。他担纲的住院医生计划曾先后培养过60余位膝关节外科医生(其中的一些是眼下享誉世界的该领域的专家)。他们组织了一个Insall俱乐部,每年聚会一次,交流手术经验及研究进展。

他是1983年成立的膝关节学会的创始人之一,并在1987年担任这一学会的主席。为眼下广泛应用的膝关节功能的膝关节学会评分系统(Knee Society scoring system)的设立作出了重要贡献(当然,另一个常用的膝关节功能评分系统——HSS评分,与他也不无关系)。学会为了纪念他的贡献,设立了Insall 奖(Insall Award),用于表彰年会上交流的有关临床效果和手术技术的杰出论文。

无论是在公开场合还是私底下,Insall均被人看作是标准的英国绅士。能与人谈论几乎所有话题,却不会与人争执。他热爱高尔夫球、钟情在世界各地旅行。1999年5月,人们惊悉他患了肺癌,且已发生转移。从此他不再露面。在他生命的最后一年,Insall在家人的陪伴下回到康涅迭格州的海边,静度余生。差不多的20世纪的最后一天(2000年12月30日),Insall安静地告别了人世。

TOP

Gavriil Abramovich Ilizarov

只要你熟悉创伤骨科,就没有不知道Ilizarov外固定架的。确实,这一外固定架是许多后续类似支架的原型,在开放性骨折、骨折延迟愈合与不愈合、肢体延长等的治疗中,发挥了不可或缺的作用。从而使Ilizarov也几乎成了外固定架的代名词。

然而,与许多西方发达国家的骨科先驱不同,Ilizarov的成功走过了一条异常艰难曲折的道路。

1921年6月,Ilizarov出生在前苏联高加索的一个贫困家庭。父母大字不识一个,孩子倒有六个。这使得Ilizarov直到11岁时才有机会上小学。但他以较短的时间就完成了8年的义务教育,且成绩总是名列前茅。1939年,他开始在克里米亚医学院学医。但随着1941年苏联卷入二战,学生也被迫疏散。他只能转而在哈萨克斯坦的医学院继续学业。1944年毕业后,被分配到西伯利亚的西部边远地区库尔干工作,并在那里度过了他的整个一生。

他的生涯就这样开始了。所谓的医院只是几间木屋,他需要烧火取暖以熬过西伯利亚的漫漫冬季。而他所在的那个地区,范围足足有比利时整个国家那么大,医生却只有他一个。正是在这个时候,他开始接触许多因战伤而致下肢损伤和畸形的患者。单纯的石膏固定愈后令人失望,Ilizarov心想:一定有更好的治疗办法。

他开始时用半环形架+斯氏针,但不久发现可以用螺丝将两个半环形架组成一个整环形外固定架。实际上,类似的环形外固定架早在1934年就已经出现,发明者是美国人Joseph E. Bittner 。但当时该外固定架仅用来作为骨折复位装置,石膏打好后便需去除。在美国和德国都有这样的治疗方法。而苏联国内对这类外固定架的认识,一般认为是二战期间从德国传来的。

当然,真正让Ilizarov成功的并不在于外固定架本身,而是他通过多年的实验和临床观察,提出了外固定架治疗的理论,其核心即为:持续的牵张力作用会刺激骨的生长。在这一理论的指导下,创伤骨折、骨折延迟愈合、骨折不愈合、肢体延长等都有了用外固定架治疗的可能。

说来有趣的是,Ilizarov发现上述现象也不乏运气的因素。有一回他外出休假,医院来了一位骨折不愈合的患者。护士想增加骨折端的压力,使其更好地接触,因此对外固定架作了调整。不料她把调节螺丝的旋转方向搞错了。骨折端非但没有紧贴,反而分开了。但后来的X线片却显示有骨痂生长。这引起了Ilizarov的注意。另有一次,一个膝关节下方截肢的患者来找医生,问有没有什么办法使他的膝下残端变长一些,以便穿戴假肢。Ilizarov告诉他,可以先装上外固定架、截断骨骼,将断端牵开。过4-5个月后,行断端之间植骨。但几个月过去后,患者并未回来找大夫。又过了半年,Ilizarov偶然地遇到了那位患者,做截骨的地方已经完全愈合了,残端已经变长,也无需任何植骨。

就这样,在20世纪50年代初,Ilizarov就完善了他的外固定架的理论基础和实际应用,但并不为外人所知。据称,1951年他曾赴莫斯科,展示他的理论和外固定架。但官方提出的条件是,要将创伤和骨科中央研究院院长的名字挂上,才能授予专利。Ilizarov拒绝了,继续回到西伯利亚默默工作。这样一直过了10多年。

随着这一技术的日益成熟,治好的病人日益增多,风声也不可避免地会传到莫斯科的苏联卫生部。1965年,官方派了一位戈列可夫斯基前往库尔干调查。虽然这位半退休的医生早就听说Ilizarov是个疯子,官方也对其成果视为骗局,他此番调查的目的就是要收集对Ilizarov不利的证据,但凭着作为医生的本能和见识,一到西伯利亚的医院,他就觉到那里确实有些非比寻常的东西。在这个边远地区的医院,条件是那么艰苦,而做的工作是那么出色。戈列可夫斯基返回莫斯科后报告了实情,但官方不但不信,反而降了他的职。

当然,事已至此,卫生部门的人也不容易对Ilizarov技术继续装聋作哑了。有人写信给***局,要求采用Ilizarov的方法治病。***局责问卫生部在莫斯科是否有这种技术,卫生部只好说有。当然不能将千里之外的Ilizarov请来,只好让戈列可夫斯基出马。

Ilizarov对官方的不配合是肯定的,因此苏联卫生部门也就处处给他小鞋穿。他偏居西伯利亚一角,一方面当然是他的不幸,令他的理念和技术无法更早地为世界所接受;另一方面也实属他的幸运。毕竟他远离官方的干扰,可以相对静心地从事自己的医疗和研究。

1967年,仍然是出于偶然,Ilizarov差不多是一夜成名,因为他治好了一位奥运会跳高冠军的骨髓炎和骨不连。从此之后,病人云集。通过写作手册和教材,他的技术也传遍全苏。当时处于冷战时期,西方仍无可能了解Ilizarov所做的工作,尽管在离佛罗里达仅近百英里的古巴,Ilizarov已在那里表演过手术。

Ilizarov技术传到西方也仍有巧合的成分。1980年意大利的一位探险家乘船航海,不知怎么搞的发生了感染性胫骨假关节。而船上的大夫恰巧是个苏联人,当即建议他找Ilizarov看看。当6个月后这位探险家返回意大利时,意大利的医生对出乎意料的良好愈后吃了一惊。此年,Ilizarov就踏上了意大利这片土地,这是他第一次在西方世界展示自己的成就。他作了4场报告,每场2小时。听众们凝神屏息,看着那些令人不可思议的病例。意大利人马上作出决定,成立Ilizarov方法研究和应用协会。意大利的媒体更是不无夸张将这一技术称为“俄罗斯的第二次革命”,将Ilizarov誉为“矫形外科学中的米开朗基罗”。

1987年,Frankel和Green成为到西伯利亚去探访Ilizarov的最早的美国医生。他们看到了“俄罗斯Ilizarov创伤与骨科重建科学中心”,这所世界上数一数二的最大的和最好创伤骨科医院。

晚年时,Ilizarov被他的成功所累,通常接诊要持续到凌晨2、3点钟,从全国各地来的病人在他的办公室门前久久不肯离去。显然,他关心每一个病人,但同时他也无法长时间承受如此高强度的工作。他的办公室有一扇后门,有时他就从那里溜出去。

在他去世之前,Ilizarov已经是前苏联家喻户晓的人物,有以他为原型的小说、戏剧和电影。他也获得过包括列宁勋章在内的几乎所有国家最高荣誉。

1992年,Ilizarov与世长辞,终年71岁。

TOP

392 | VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 www.neurosurgery-online.com
LEGACIES
HISTORY OF SPINE BIOMECHANICS: PART II—
FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE 20TH CENTURY
SPINE BIOMECHANICS PROVIDE the foundation for the disciplines of spine medicine
and spine surgery. Although modern spine biomechanics emerged during the second
half of the last century, it has many ancient, medieval, and post-Renaissance roots. In
Part I of this series, the ancient and medieval roots of spine biomechanics were reviewed.
In Part II, the effects of post-Renaissance scientists on the development of modern spine
biomechanics, as well as the studies on gait, bone, and muscles performed before the
20th century, are reviewed. Subsequently, war-related studies performed in the 20th
century contributed to the formation of modern biomechanics. The first biomechanicsrelated
organizations and scientific publications did not emerge until the second half
of the 20th century. These events provided the final bricks in the foundation that facilitated
the emergence of modern spine biomechanics research.
KEY WORDS: Biomechanics, History, Spine
Neurosurgery 60:392–404, 2007 DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000249263.80579.F9 www.neurosurgery-online.com
Sait Naderi, M.D.
Department of Neurosurgery,
Yeditepe University
School of Medicine,
Istanbul, Turkey
Niteen Andalkar, M.D.
Department of Neurosurgery,
Cleveland Clinic Spine Institute,
Cleveland Clinic Foundation,
Cleveland, Ohio
Edward C. Benzel, M.D.
Department of Neurosurgery,
Cleveland Clinic Spine Institute,
Cleveland Clinic Foundation,
Cleveland, Ohio
Reprint requests:
Edward C. Benzel, M.D.,
Department of Neurosurgery,
Cleveland Clinic Spine Institute,
Cleveland Clinic Foundation,
9500 Euclid Avenue, S-80,
Cleveland, OH 44195.
Email: benzele@ccf.org
Received, February 20, 2006.
Accepted, October 13, 2006.
The most important findings and advancements
regarding spine biomechanics
were defined during the second half of
the 20th century. The progress enjoyed during
the latter half of the 20th century had its roots
in the ancient age, the Renaissance, and the
post-Renaissance era. This is particularly true
of the latter part of the 17th century, also
known as the Century of Scientific Revolution,
and the 19th and 20th centuries. As noted in
Part I of this series, the eras and periods have
been arbitrarily chosen and are depicted as
overlapping. The significant contributors are
portrayed for reference purposes in Figure 1.
The most significant contributions of ancient
and medieval scientists to the discipline of biomechanics
included an awareness of the normal
and pathological anatomy of the human
spine, a heightened knowledge base regarding
traumatic and non-traumatic spine deformities,
and an understanding of the gait patterns
of mammals (46). It is notable that the majority
of these aforementioned contributions were
derived from the physicians and philosophers
of the ancient age. The contributions by
medieval scientists were of less importance and,
importantly, they often represented the reintroduction
of concepts and knowledge drawn
from ancient manuscripts. Translations of
ancient manuscripts from Arabic to Western
languages opened the door for the rest of the
world to the works of the ancient civilizations.
These manuscripts encouraged the study of
pre-Renaissance works. This, in turn, encouraged
and facilitated the efforts of the Renaissance
scientists. This ultimately led to a scientific
revolution during the Renaissance.
The scientists of the 17th century studied
mathematics, mechanics, and occasionally biomechanics.
The 18th century was the century
in which gait was predominantly studied.
Many studies on muscles were performed as
well (9, 27). Many more studies on bone
mechanics were performed in the 19th century.
The scientists of the 19th century sought to
relate bone trabecular architecture to its
mechanical, load-bearing attributes. During
this era, it was commonly thought that bony
architecture responded anatomically to stress
(10, 48, 50, 61, 73, 74, 80). This process resulted
in the definition of Wolff’s law. These studies
and subsequent studies in the 20th century
contributed to the development of biomechanics
as a new discipline.
THE RENAISSANCE
It is commonly thought that modern scientific
thought was born in the Renaissance, a
period during which religious influence diminished.
Scientists began to probe and discover
the wonders of the human body and other sciNEUROSURGERY
VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 | 393
HISTORY OF SPINE BIOMECHANICS: PART II
entific phenomena, rather than focusing on religious issues. It
is notable that the Renaissance initially provided few significant,
direct contributions to the sciences, compared with the
substantial contributions to the arts made during this era.
There were essentially two relatively distinct periods of scientific
development before and during the Renaissance. The
first period began during the second half of the 11th century
and peaked in the 13th century. The second period began in
the 16th century. Whereas the first period was characterized
by the translation of ancient manuscripts from Latin or Arabic
languages, the second period was characterized by studies in
the arts (27).
The only major scientific contributions during the beginning
of the Renaissance were those of Leonardo da Vinci. The main
topic of discussion during the 16th century was that of methodology.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was the first scientist to
criticize scholarly traditions. Rene Descartes (1596–1650) presented
and introduced very valuable mathematical data and
theory. At the beginning of the 17th century, there were no
important advances in physics other than the development of
the magnet. After this timeframe, however, the combination of
mathematics and scientific experiments led to progress in
physics. The first half of the 18th century was, for the most
part, non-productive. During the second half of this century,
however, many studies were performed by Leonard Euler
(1707–1783), Joseph Lagrange (1736–1813), and Pier Simon
Laplace (1749–1827). They set the stage for modern scientific
and biomechanical thought. Adiscussion of the major scientists
and contributors during this era is in order.
Leonardo Da Vinci (1452–1519)
Leonardo da Vinci (Fig. 2) was an artist, engineer, and scientist
who contributed substantially to the understanding of biomechanics.
Born in 1452, da Vinci became famous as an artist,
but worked and functioned predominantly as an engineer. He
made major contributions to the study of mechanics in the
course of pursuing his numerous engineering projects and
innovations. He had an understanding of the components of
force vectors, friction coefficients, and the acceleration of falling
objects. da Vinci also demonstrated an understanding of
Newton’s third law (27, 68).
He studied muscles because he wanted to understand how
the human physical specimens that he portrayed in his
paintings actually functioned. da Vinci completed more than
750 drawings on the basis of his anatomic dissections on
10 cadavers (Figs. 3–5). In these meticulous drawings, he
applied his knowledge of mechanical principles to the study of
human anatomy by concentrating on dynamic illustrations of
joints, muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons, and cartilage.
Leonardo da Vinci was the first to accurately describe the
human adult S-shape spinal posture with its curvatures, articulations,
and vertebrae (notably, with the number of vertebrae
portrayed accurately). He emphasized the contribution of muscles
to cervical spine stability and described a method by which
the spine provided stability to the human body. He wrote
“You will first make the spine of the neck with its tendons
like the mast of a ship with its side-riggings (transverse
or spinous processes), this being without the head.
Then make the head with its tendons (muscles that can
provide active force of effort) which (attached to the side
riggings) gives it (the head) its movement on its fulcrum
(spinal joints)” (68, p 660).
He stated “nature cannot give the power of movement to animals
without mechanical means” (68, p 660). He seems be the
first to understand the principles of lever systems, as applied to
human motion. da Vinci analyzed the mechanics of walking,
both up- and downhill, as well as rising from the seated position.
However, delightful as his notebooks are to explore, they
were personal works and remained unpublished for centuries.
As a result, the brilliant recordings of his daydreams had little
FIGURE 1. Timeline from the Renaissance period through the 19th century.
FIGURE 2. Leonardo da Vinci contributed substantially to the understanding
of biomechanics.
394 | VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 www.neurosurgery-online.com
NADERI ET AL.
scientific impact. Hence, his studies and observations had little
effect on the scientific literature during his lifetime (51).
Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564)
The development of the study of anatomy contributed to the
understanding of spine biomechanics. Andreas Vesalius produced
an entire series of anatomic drawings (or plates) in “De
Humani Corporis Fabrica” (Fig. 6). Many consider this work, published
in 1543, to have heralded the era of modern medicine.
FIGURE 3. Illustration by da Vinci depicting the human spine and paraspinal
muscles.
FIGURE 4. Illustration by da Vinci depicting the human spine.
FIGURE 5. Illustration by da Vinci depicting the relationship between the cervical
roots and the cervical spine.
FIGURE 6. The frontispiece of Vesalius’ The Human Corporis Fabric,
which was the first book on modern anatomy.
A review of this book reveals that, like da Vinci, he also accurately
described the nuances of spine anatomy in great detail (5).
Vesalius (Fig. 7) described the intervertebral disc, he termed
the spine the “dorsum” (backbone) (Fig. 8), and he observed
that the spine provides the route of passage for the spinal cord,
as did Galen and Avicenna. According to Vesalius, the spine
was defined as the “keel of the body, composed of 34 bones
(vertebrae). The neck has seven bones…by means of the first of
these bones, we move the head diectly forward and backward.
By the use of the second vertebra (to which a prominent
process resembling a canine tooth is attached) we turn the
head…” (5). Although such statements regarding the biomechanics
of the upper cervical spine were not new and had been
recorded by Avicenna in the 11th century, Vesalius described
partitions of the spinal column and foramina in detail.
It is notable that Vesalius did not address the cervical and the
lumbar curves of the spine. As was the case with many scientific
discoveries in the past, Andreas Vesalius built upon the
rediscovery of the work of Galen. The studies of da Vinci and
Vesalius are indicative of the importance of a methodological
dissection by specialists in scientific studies. The notion that
human anatomy was an objective discipline based on observation
and well-defined scientific principles began to emanate
within the scientific community. da Vinci and Vesalius, both
men of modern science, were instrumental in bringing about
these changes. Their focus on revealing anatomic secrets
through the investigation of human cadavers was, henceforth,
brought to the forefront of the scientific community.
Galileo Galilei
(1564–1642)
According to the eminent
scientific writer Gribbin,
Galileo Galilei is the person
who most deserves the title
of “first scientist” (27). He not
only applied what is essentially
modern scientific
methodology to his work, but
he also confidently laid down
the ground rules for others to
follow. Galileo Galilei was
born 21 years after the death
of Copernicus. The strength
of his powerful, irascible personality
dominated the scientific
world of his time. Thus,
he became the great animating
spirit of the scientific revolution
that followed the
Renaissance. Galileo Galilei
was a student of medicine
before he became famous as a
physicist. Galileo’s fame was
so great and his lectures in
Padua were so popular that
his influence on biomechanics
went far beyond his personal
contributions. He was
particularly aware of the
mechanical aspects of bone
structure (51). In Discourses
on Two New Sciences (1638),
Galileo noted the following:
”The mass of animals increase
disproportionately
to their size, and their
bones must consequently
also disproportionately
increase in girth, adapting
to load-bearing rather than
mere size” (51).
“The bending strength of a
tubular structure, such as a bone, is increased relative to its
weight by making it hollow and increasing its diameter” (51).
“Marine animals can be larger than terrestrial animals because
the water’s buoyancy relieves their bones of weight bearing
responsibilities” (51).
He also stated that to preserve the strength of a tubular bone
while increasing its length three times, it is necessary to
increase its thickness nine times. His work gave impetus to the
study of mechanical events in mathematical terms, which, in
turn, provided a basis for the emergence of kinesiology as a science.
Galileo showed that mathematics was the essential key to
science, without which nature could not be properly under-
FIGURE 7. Andreas Vesalius, pioneer of modern anatomy.
FIGURE 8. Illustration of the spine
from The Human Corporis Fabric
(back bone of Vesalius).
NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 | 395
HISTORY OF SPINE BIOMECHANICS: PART II
396 | VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 www.neurosurgery-online.com
NADERI ET AL.
stood. This outlook inspired Descartes, a great mathematician,
to pursue the discipline of physiology.
Rene Descartes (1596–1650)
Rene Descartes was not a major contributor in the field of
biomechanics; his thoughts, however, had an indirect impact on
the field. Descartes was one of the founders of mechanical philosophy.
He was the mastermind behind the creation of the
Cartesian coordinate system. This philosophy suggested that
changes observed in the natural world should be explained
only in terms of motion and rearrangements of the parts of
matter. Descartes’ mathematical theory of mechanics provided
the basis for the maturation of the science of mechanics in the
18th century. In 1624, Descartes published the first paper
devoted to physiology, L’homme. This treatise emphasized the
theory that movement was coordinated through the nervous
system. Descartes’ application of mechanics to humans
included the belief that humans were soul-containing organic
machines running on auto pilot (27).
In 1675, Descartes stated in “Tractus de Homine et de Formatione
Foetus” (“A Treatise on Humans and the Formation of
the Foetus”) that “all of animal physiology could be explained
by mechanics.” His following statement is wellknown:
“the body is a machine (lever is machine) made by
the hand of God!” (68, p 661).
Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608–1679)
Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (Fig. 9) was the founder of the concept
of iatrophysics (i.e., medical physics). Born in Naples, Italy,
on January 28, 1608, he studied mathematics in Rome and was
a student of Benedetto Castelli, who was a student of Galilei.
Castelli arranged for Borelli
to teach a lectureship on
mathematics in Messina. In a
short time, he was recognized
throughout Italy in the
fields of mathematics, physiology,
physics, and astronomy
(63). He then became
professor of mathematics in
Pisa where he met Marcello
Malpighi (Fig. 10). Both were
founding members of the
short lived “Accademia del
Cimento.” Around this time,
Borelli also studied anatomy.
The association between
Malpighi and Borelli resulted
in many new works. Malpighi stimulated Borelli’s interest in
living beings, whereas Borelli stimulted Malpighi to investigate
the manner in which living systems work (51, 52).
Malpighi recalled, “What progress I made in philosophizing
stems from Borelli.” Borelli states this about Malpighi: “I
worked hard dissecting living animals at his home and observing
their parts to satisfy his keen curiosity” (50).
Borelli applied the principles of “Equilibrium of Rotation”
and “Equilibrium of Translation” to spinal biomechanical
analysis. One of the most important mechanical features of
animal (and human) motility observed by Borelli was that
muscles act via short lever arms. Therefore, a joint transmit of
force that is “n” order of magnitude greater than the weight of
the load applied (or lifted). Borelli essentially, and appropriately,
discredited older concepts of muscle action that implied
that long lever arms were required to allow weak muscles to
move heavy objects.
His book, De Motu Animalium, or On the Movements of
Animals, published in 1680 shortly after his death, was the
first in the field of biomechanics (Fig. 11). The first part of
this book contained studies of external motions of the musculoskeletal
system, whereas the second part contained studies
on internal motions, such as muscle physiology and blood
circulation. He defined his purpose in an introductory statement
as follows:
“Animals are bodies and their vital operations are either
movements or actions which require movements. But bodies
and movements are the subject of mathematics. Such a
scientific approach is exactly geometry. Similarly, the operartions
of animals are carried out using instruments and
mechanical means such as sales, levers, pulleys, windingdrums,
nails, spirals, etc.” (7).
This book provided many calculations regarding spine biomechanics,
such as Borelli’s calculation of forces on spine musculature
and intervertebral discs (Fig. 12). He noted that the
spine had to be “stable, much like the hull of a ship” (6), and
also noted that the vertebrae were flat and wide to prevent dislocations
FIGURE 9. Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, known as the father of biomechanics. locations and to provide stability.
FIGURE 10. Marcello Malpighi, an
anatomist associate of Borelli.
Borelli calculated the effect of a load borne in the neck. For
example, he noted, “If the spine of a stevedore is bent and supports
a load of 120 pounds carried on the neck, the force exerted
by nature in the intervertebral discs and in the extensor muscles
of the spine is equal to 25,585 pounds. The force exerted by the
muscle alone is not less than 6404 pounds. . . . Therefore, the sum
of muscular forces which control the fifth lumbar vertebra and a
third of the resistance of the intervetebral disc is equal to 826
pounds. The muscular forces are equal to 413 pounds and the
forces exerted by the disc are equal to 1239 pounds” (7). These
calculations revealed that Borelli was aware of the load-sharing
concept in spine biomechanics (Fig. 13).
Borelli knew that for adequate flexibility of any animal, the
spine must be divided into multiple segments by articulations.
He noted that the intervertebral discs play an important role in
spine biomechanics. According to Borelli, the intervertebral
disc is a viscoelastic substance and functions as a cushion preventing
attrition of the bone. He also noted that fibers comprising
the intervertebral disc are much stronger than those in muscle.
Therefore, he reported that the majority of the spinal load
is borne by the intervertebral discs, with a much smaller portion
borne by the spinal musculature.
Borelli was the first to experimentally determine the position
of the human center of gravity (50). He used a wooden plank
and trihedral pyramidal system to precisely balance a person
(Fig. 14), observing a point located between the pelvis and the
buttocks. The validity of this technique was confirmed approximately
200 years later by Braune and Fisher (11) in frozen
cadavers.
After Borelli, there is little sign of biomechanical study in
the literature until the latter half of the 19th century. Due to his
early and substantial contributions, Borelli is widely recognized
as the father of biomechanics (62, 63).
Robert Hooke (1635–1703)
According to Hooke’s law, it is estimated that no solid is perfectly
rigid. When several external forces act on a solid at rest
FIGURE 11. The cover of Borelli’s book, De motu Animalium, which was
the first comprehensive book on biomechanics.
FIGURE 12. Borelli’s illustration depicting the spine, muscles, and intervertebral
discs from De motu Animalium.
FIGURE 13. Illustration demonstrating Borelli’s load-sharing concept from
De motu Animalium.
NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 | 397
HISTORY OF SPINE BIOMECHANICS: PART II
398 | VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 www.neurosurgery-online.com
NADERI ET AL.
and the resultant net force is zero, the solid remains at rest.
Hooke’s law expresses that for small displacements, the size of
the deformation is proportional to the deforming force. This
law is of significant importance when one considers the forces
applied to the spine by a spine instrumentation construct (as
well as the response of the construct to these forces). For larger
displacements, however, the neutral zone is exceeded and the
elastic limit is reached. This is the point at which the force
departs from the linear relationship between the size of deformation
and the deforming force. Exceeding the elastic limit
causes the solid to acquire a permanent set; if the external
forces are removed, the solid does not spring back to its undeformed
configuration. The solid will ultimately fail if further
forces are applied. This point is termed the point of failure (27).
Apart from the definition of Hooke’s law, Hooke studied gravity
and was the first scientist to use the term “cell.”
Isaac Newton (1642–1727)
Isaac Newton (Fig. 15) made many significant scientific contributions,
but did not write specifically about biomechanics.
His findings regarding calculus, laws of motion, and analytical
portrayals of the hydraulic characteristics of viscous fluids,
however, were critical regarding the emergence of biomechanics
as a field of study. His publication of Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica in 1686 presented laws of motion that are
used today to describe and define motion. These laws express
the relationship between the forces and their effects (27, 64).
Newton’s First Law of Motion (Law of Inertia)
Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform
motion, in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that
state by forces impressed upon it.
Newton’s Second Law of Motion (Law of Momentum)
The change of motion is proportional to the motive force
impressed and made in the direction of the right line in which
that force is impressed.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion (Law of Interaction)
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or,
the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always
equal and directed to the contrary parts.
Newton is also credited with the first observations regarding
the parallelogram of force, based on his observation that a moving
body affected by two independent forces acting simultaneously
moved along a diagonal equal to the vector sum of the
forces acting independently (63). Newton’s laws of motion,
along with his idea of the parallelogram of force, can be readily
applied to spine biomechanics.
Leonard Euler (1707–1783)
Leonard Euler is another important individual who studied
mathematics, astronomy, physics, and biomechanics. In 1736,
Euler published a systematic introduction to mechanics in
Mechanica sive motus scientia analytice exposita, or Mechanics or
motion explained with analytical science. He stated that the human
spine carries compressive loads like a column and that such
loads may lead to instability or failure. He studied mathematic
models to derive these findings (27, 68).
Thomas Young (1773–1829)
Thomas Young studied the formation of the human voice
and identified it as resulting from vibrations. He connected
this process with the elasticity of materials. He improved on
Hooke’s law by providing a measure, Young’s modulus.
Young’s modulus defines a proportionality between force and
stretch or compression for different substances. This modulus
is a measure of the elastic properties of stretchable and compressible
bodies. It is defined as the limit, for small strains, of
FIGURE 14. Illustration of the method used by Borelli to experimentally
determine the human center of gravity from De motu Animalium.
FIGURE 15. Isaac Newton’s contributions were critical in the emergence of
the field of biomechanics.
thorough analysis of gait from photographs taken simultaneously
by four cameras (10).
Julius Wolff (1836–1902) and Wolff’s Law
The definition of Wolff’s law may be one of the most important
events defining the field of biomechanics. Julius Wolff
established this law on the basis of his own work and the studies
of earlier scientists. Therefore, it is necessary to address the
studies supporting his work.
In 1832, Marc Jean Bougery (1797–1849), Claude Bernard
(1813–1878), and Nicolas Henri Jacob (1782–1871) raised the
question of the relationship between the architecture and the
mechanical function of bones and assumed that, in the neck of
the human femur, there was a line of compression along which
the trabeculae seemed to be particularly dense and strong (8).
In 1838, F.O. Ward, a London anatomist, compared the architecture
of the femoral neck with that of a street lamp in a triangular
wall-bracket in Outlines of Human Osteology. He reported
that the horizontal trabeculae in the bone were responding to
stress and the oblique trabeculae were responding to pressure
(74). This was a unique study that addressed stresses on bone.
During this era, engineers were studying and analyzing
stresses associated with railways, bridges, cranes, etc. Ward
applied the findings of engineers of his time to biological systems,
specifically bone.
In 1867, Hermann von Meyer (1801–1869), an anatomist from
Zürich and author of The Architecture of the Spongiosa, and Karl
Culmann (1821–1881), an engineer from Germany, compared
the stresses on the femoral neck and on a crane. They showed
that the structure of the femoral neck, which supports the torso,
was mathematically equivalent to a crane (48). They discovered
a remarkable similarity between the trabecular architecture of
the proximal femur and the patterns of stress trajectories, calculated
using “Graphical Statics,” a new methodology developed
by Culmann (73). It is said that Culmann, on seeing a longitudinal
section through the proximal end of the femur
prepared by von Meyer, exclaimed: “This is my crane!” (50). In
1881, Wilhelm Roux suggested that the formation and functional
adaptation of trabecular architecture in bone is regulated
locally by cells that are governed by mechanical stimuli (66). In
1883, Hugh Owen Thomas (1834–1891) mentioned, “Eccentric
forms, that cannot be altered in the dead body without rupture
or fracture can, during life, be altered by mechanical influence,
as time and physiological action will command the part to the
direction of the employed force” (70).
In 1890, a university clinic for orthopaedic surgery was
opened in Berlin, Germany with Julius Wolff (Fig. 16), an
orthopaedic surgeon, as its first director. Before beginning to
work as director of this department, Wolff was a pupil of
Langenbeck, who suggested that Wolff’s doctoral thesis should
be on the experimental production of bone in animals. Apart
from the aformentioned studies, he reviewed the works of
Belchior, Hunter, Duhamel, and Flourens, all of whom had published
on osteogenesis (48). Roentgenography was not yet available.
To analyze trabecular architecture, Wolff made thin sections
from bone. In 1892 he wrote his book, “Das Gesetz de
the rate of change of stress with strain. Young’s modulus can be
determined experimentally from the slope of a stress-strain
curve created during tensile or compressive tests conducted
on a sample of the material. Young’s modulus is extensively
used in spine biomechanics today (27).
THE 19TH CENTURY
A variety of scientific studies were performed during the
19th century; however, a limited number of studies were published
on muscle, nerve, and bone physiology. The majority of
the publications resulted from the collaboration between engineers
and physicians. The Weber brothers, Christian Wilhelm
Braune, Otto Fischer, and Julius Wolff were among the scientists
contributing to the field of biomechanics during this era.
The Weber Brothers
Ernst Heinrich Weber (1795–1878), Wilhelm Eduard Weber
(1804–1891), and Eduard Friedrich Wilhelm Weber (1806–1871)
espoused the idea that the human torso was maintained in the
erect position primarily via tension of the ligaments, with little
or no muscular exertion. The Webers were the first to investigate
the reduction in the length of an individual muscle during
contraction and devoted much study to the role of bones as
mechanical levers (75). They were also the first to describe, in
chronological detail, the movement of the center of gravity. The
modern concept of locomotion originated with the studies of
Borelli (7). Very little was accomplished in this field before the
Webers’ publication of Die Mechanik Der Menschlichen Gehwerkzeuge
(Mechanics of the Human Gait) in 1836 (76). Their treatise,
which still stands as a classical work in the field, was based
solely on observations. Nevertheless, it firmly established the
mechanism of muscular action on a scientific basis.
Christian Wilhelm Braune (1831–1892)
and Otto Fischer (1861–1917)
In 1891, the first three-dimensional mathematic analysis of
human gait was conducted by Wilhelm Braune and his student
Otto Fischer. It was published in their book Der Gang des
Menschen (Human Gait) (10). Their major premise was that
knowledge of the position of the center of gravity of the human
torso and of the body’s component parts was fundamental to
an understanding of the resistive forces that the muscles must
overcome during movement. Braune and Fischer (11) performed
a very careful study of mass, volume, and the center of
mass of three adult male cadavers and their body segments.
The cadavers, each of which had committed suicide, were close
to the average build of German soldiers of that period. To avoid
fluid loss, the cadavers were kept frozen throughout the study.
The center of mass of each body segment was not estimated by
the use of balance plates, as in the previously described studies,
but rather by driving thin rods into the tissue and hanging
the body segment from three axes. The intersection of three
externally fixed planes, e.g., vertically through each of the axes
formed on the segment, corresponded to the center of mass.
After these preliminary studies, they were able to provide a
NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 | 399
HISTORY OF SPINE BIOMECHANICS: PART II
400 | VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 www.neurosurgery-online.com
NADERI ET AL.
Transformation de Knochen,” or
The Law of Bone Remodeling,
which was the culmination of
the knowledge gained from
the aforementioned project.
Wolff thought that bones
were formed by satisfying a
mathematical optimization
rule. Apparently, Culmann’s
findings provided a blueprint
for a design of bone for Wolff
who described a trabecular
orientation in healthy and
deformed bones. He attributed
this orientation to the
assumed capacity of bone to form and adapt its architecture in
accordance with externally applied loads. He determined that
bony deformation led to changes in internal structure and secondary
adaptive microarchitectural changes. He stated that
“every change in the form and function of a bone, or function
alone, is followed by specific definite changes in the internal
architecture and equally definite secondary changes in its external
configuration, in accordance with mathematical laws” (80).
From this work, Wolff concluded that trabecular morphology
matches the stress trajectories. This conclusion is known as his
“trajectorial hypothesis” and forms the basis of Wolff’s law.
Wolff’s law has become one of most important elements of
spine biomechanics.
The law formally states that “Every change in the form and
function of a bone, or of function alone, is followed by specific
definite change in its internal architecture and equally definite
secondary changes in its external configuration, in accordance
with mathematical laws.” Elsewhere, the law states that
“Structure is nothing else than the physical expression of function…
under pathological conditions the structure and form of
the parts change according to the abnormal conditions of force
transmission” (80).
THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN
BIOMECHANICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY
Although, there were a limited number of studies published
in the field of biomechanics (21), the collaboration between
engineers and physicians contributed to the understanding of
biomechanical principles and the publication of high quality,
meaningful works. The biomechanical studies from the first
half of the 20th century focused predominantly on acquiring
information regarding gymnastics education and sports activities
in schools, gait and musculoskeletal analyses performed
for general health problems, World War I- and II-related
injuries, and analysis of craniospinal trauma from motor vehicle
accidents. Wilbur Bowen, Tuth Glassow, William Skarstrom,
Gladys Scoth, Louise Alley, Arthur Steindler, Katharine Welles,
Marion Broer, and John Cooper were among the scientists who
focused on biomechanics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
with the aim of reorganizing gymnastics in the United
States (17, 42).
World Wars I and II resulted in many casualties and many
disabled veterans requiring long-term care. Many war-related
injuries occurred among airplane pilots. Both patient populations
presented significant opportunity for biomechanical
analysis. Jules Amar (1879–1935), using force and motion measurement
techniques, was one of the first researchers to provide
a biomechanical evaluation of the gait and task performance of
thousands of disabled veterans in France. His book, The Human
Motor, was published in France in 1914 and was translated into
English in 1920 (4, 17).
World War II paralleled the introduction of high performance
aircraft, which led to an interest in spine biomechanical testing.
At that time, ejection seats of airplanes could not be handled
manually and complications were evident because of the lack
of extraction of German pilots from airplanes during an emergency.
A multitude of spinal column injuries resulted, leading
Siegfried Ruff to perform spine biomechanics studies on this
subject (67).
Similar studies were performed to test the strength of the
spinal column. To achieve good spinal posture at the moment
of ejection, Olof Perey tested ejection seats from Swedish J-21
fighters in 1945, and the Martin-Baker aircraft company performed
tests in England in 1944 (15).
The United States Air Force initiated similar studies to design
ejection seats for aircraft in 1945. Contemporary researchers at
Wayne State University performed studies on the biomechanical
aspects of the spinal column, while teams at Massachusetts
General Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology
studied the properties of the intervertebral disc (15).
Contemporary clinical studies were performed as well.
Friedrich Pauwels (1885–1980) (Fig. 17) and Nikolai A.
Bernshtein (1896–1966) were among the scientists who systematically
studied musculoskeletal biomechanics in the first half
of the 20th century (50, 61).
In addition to the aformentioned
studies performed in
Europe, some were performed
in the United States.
A“myodynamics laboratory”
was established within the
Department of Surgery of the
University of Rochester
School of Medicine and
Dentistry in 1926 by Russell
Plato Schwartz (1894–1965).
Dr. Schwartz’s intention was
to devise mechanisms for the
accurate recording of human
locomotion to establish
norms for both normal and
abnormal gait. Beginning in
the mid-1930s, research in the
myodynamics laboratory
was focused increasingly on
FIGURE 16. Julius Wolff, whose
“trajectoral hypothesis” forms the
basis of one of the most important elements
of spine biomechanics.
FIGURE 17. Friedrich Pauwels was
one of the most prominent scientists
to study musculoskeletal biomechanics
in the first half of the 20th century.
the development of the “functional” principles of shoe design,
with a continued perfection of gait recording instruments and
the development of such surgical tools as the mirrorscope. The
laboratory maintained its interest in the pure mechanics of
human locomotion and the application of these studies to the
diagnosis and management of gait abnormalities, whether
caused by injury or congenital conditions. The establishment of
this rudimentary biomechanics laboratory provided a vision
and a direction for studies on spine biomechanics (3).
Similarly, in the biomechanics laboratory at Wayne State
University in Detroit, Michigan, Professor Herbert Richard
Lissner (1908–1965), an engineer, and Professor E. Stephen
Gurdjian (1900-1985), a neurosurgeon, initiated studies on head
injury and cranial fracture mechanisms in 1939 (King A, personal
communication). Professor Lissner studied spine biomechanics
in the early 1950s (20, 28, 29, 31). Together Lissner and
Gurdjian attempted to determine the effects of axial compression
and transverse bending on lumbar disc herniation. This
represents one of the first true modern spine biomechanics
experiments.
They also sought to determine the reason for thoracolumbar
wedge fractures in pilots ejecting from disabled military aircraft.
Lissner built a vertical accelerator in an elevator shaft at
the school of medicine to duplicate this injury in cadavers
(King A, personal communication).
These preliminary studies were followed by other studies in
the 1950s, including those of Virgin (72), Hirsch (35, 37), Hirsch
and Schajowicz (41), Hirsch and Nachemson (40), Evans (18,
19), Evans and Lissner (20), Higgins (34), Friberg and Hirsch
(22), Sylven et al. (69), and Werne (77). These works led to the
performance of the first studies of bending moment in the spine
with the load-deflection, energy-absorption, and bendingmoment
studies of Evans and Lissner (20).
One of the pioneers in this era was Carl Hirsch (1913–1973),
an orthopaedic surgeon from Sweden (Fig. 18) who performed
biomechanical studies on the knee, hip, and spine in the 1940s
(35). Hirsch’s studies captured the imagination of many scientists,
and many surgeons and engineers visited his center in the
1950s and 60s (2). Victor Frankel, George Galante, Augustus
White, Wilson C. Hayes, and Albert B. Scultz were among the
American scientists who visited
Hirsch’s laboratory during
this era (Panjabi MM,
personal communication).
Lysell was probably the
first modern researcher to
conduct a thorough in vitro
study of cervical spine motion
and patterns of motion. He
also provided a comprehensive
review of the literature
in which he credits Weber
(1827) with performing the
first objective assessment of
spinal motion. Lysell used
fresh whole cadaveric cervical
spine specimens (C2–T1). Using four 0.8-mm steel balls
inserted into each vertebra and quantitative stereoradiography,
he measured the three-dimensional relative motion between
vertebrae. He studied a total of 28 specimens and found no
effect of age or extent of degeneration on motion (49).
Hirsch and his contemporary researchers were, therefore, the
pioneers of modern biomechanics (36). They carried out their
studies in well established laboratories, and their fellows
founded similar laboratories in their respective new institutions.
This increased both the quantity and quality of
biomechanics-related research in the 1950s and 60s (12, 36, 38,
39, 53–57, 65, 69). It also established the process of biomechanics
education and the proliferation of qualified bona fide
researchers and educators. This contribution of Hirsch, more
than any other research endeavor, secured the future of the discipline
of spine biomechanics.
Finite Element Analysis
A brief history of finite element analysis (FEA) was
reported by Peter Widas (79). According to Widas, FEA was
first developed in 1943 by Courant and Hilbert (14) who
used the Ritz method of numerical analysis and minimization
of variational calculus to obtain approximate solutions
to vibration systems. In 1956, a study published by Turner
et al. (71) established a broader definition of numerical
analysis. The study focused on the stiffness and deflection of
complex structures (79). In the late 1950s, the continuum
model of the spine was first developed within the aviation
industry to determine the relationship between emergency
pilot ejection and the risk for spinal injury (33). This model
evolved over the years.
By the early 1970s, FEA was limited to expensive mainframe
computers, which were generally owned by aeronautics,
automotive, defense, and nuclear industry companies.
Since the rapid decline in the cost of computers and the phenomenal
increase in computing power, FEA has attained
incredible precision. FEA techniques have been used with
increasing frequency, including use for spine biomechanics
applications (25, 30, 32, 44, 59). Today, FEA is used for the biomechanical
assessment of healthy and pathological spine
states and for the testing of spine implants in many biomechanics
laboratories.
Clinical Studies
Besides biomechanical laboratory research, many physicians
applied the results of laboratory studies to the clinical arena.
The term “stability” had been defined on many occasions by
multiple authors (78). This led surgeons to develop scales and
scoring systems, as well as to define column concepts. The twocolumn
system for spine stability was defined in 1962 by Sir
Frank Holdsworth (43) and the three-column system by Francis
Denis (16). The definition of tumor-related instability required
the definition of six columns (47). In this vein, Edward C.
Benzel (6) described a cube system for determining stability
that addressed the integrity of only the ventral column (vertebral
body and intervertebral disc).
FIGURE 18. Carl Hirsch, orthopaedic
surgeon and one of the pioneers
of modern biomechanics.
NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 | 401
HISTORY OF SPINE BIOMECHANICS: PART II
In summary, the progress and maturation of biomechanical
studies in the past two centuries has, in part, led to an increase
in the volume and quality of publications. War-related disabilities,
general health problems, and automotive industry-related
injuries created a demand for a myriad of innovative and clinically
relevant works. In turn, this process helped craft the complex
environment that the field of spine biomechanics enjoys
today. The rapid emergence of a growing number of laboratories
and organizations, along with the involvement of a large
and growing number of scientists, has resulted in remarkable
advancements in the field.
REFERENCES
1. Adams M, Bogduk N, Burton K, Dolan P: The Biomechanics of Back Pain.
Edinburg, Churchill Livingstone, 2002.
2. Anonymous: Carl Hirsch. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56:210–211, 1974.
3. Anonymous: History of the study of locomotion. http://www.guardin.
curtin.edu.au/cga/history/enlightment.html. Accessed April 8, 2005.
4. Amar J: The Human Motor, or the Scientific Foundation of Labour and Industry.
New York, G. Routledge, 1920.
5. Benini A, Bonar SK: Andreas Vesalius 1514–1564. Spine 21:1388–1393, 1996.
6. Benzel EC: Biomechanics of Spine Stabilization. Park Ridge, American
Association of Neurological Surgeons, 2001.
7. Borelli GA: On the Movement of Animals. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1989.
8. Bougery MJ, Bernard C, Jacob NH: Textbook of Human Anatomy [in French].
Paris, Guerin, 1832.
9. Braun GL: Kinesiology: From Aristotle to the Twentieth Century. Res Quart
12:163–173, 1941.
10. Braune W, Fischer O: Human gait: Trial on loaded and unloaded humans [in
German] Saech Gesellsch Wissensch 21:153–322, 1895.
11. Braune W, Fischer O: On the Center of Gravity of the Human Body [in German].
Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1988.
12. Brown T, Hansen RJ, Yorra AJ: Some mechanical tests on the lumbosacral
spine with particular reference to the intervertebral discs; a preliminary
report. J Bone Joint Surg 39A:1135–1164, 1957.
13. Byars EF, Contini R, Roberts VL: Biomechanics Monograph. New York, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1967, pp 245.
14. Courant R, Hilbert D: Methods of Mathematical Physics. New York, Interscience
Publishers, 1953, vol 1.
15. Crawford H: Survivable impact forces on human body constrained by full
body harness. Report HSL/2003/09 prepared for health and safety executive,
2003.
16. Denis F: The three column injury and its significance in the classification of
acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine 8:817–831, 1983.
17. Drewlinger DM: Biomechanics. Emergence of an academic discipline in the
United States. Denton, Texas Woman’s University, 1996 (dissertation).
18. Evans FG: Studies in human biomechanics. New York Acad Sciences
63:586–615, 1955.
19. Evans FG: Stress and strain in bones. Their relation to fractures and osteogenesis.
Springfield, Charles C. Thomas, 1957.
20. Evans FG, Lissner HR: Biomechanical studies on the lumbar spine and pelvis.
J Bone Joint Surg Am 41:278–290, 1959.
21. Fick R: Handbook of Joint Anatomy and Mechanics by Taking Muscle Movement
into Consideration [in German]. Jena, Fischer, 19ll.
22. Friberg S, Hirsch C: Anatomical and clinical studies on lumbar disc degeneration.
Acta Orthop Scand 19:222–242, 1949.
23. Fung YC: Biomechanics: Its scope, history, and some problems of continuum
in physiology. App Mech Rev 21:1–20, 1968.
24. Fung YC: Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues. New York,
Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp 1–13.
25. Goel VK, Gilbertson LG: Applications of the finite method to thoracolumbar
spinal research—past, present, and future. Spine 20:1719–1727, 1995.
26. Goel VK, Weinstein JN: Biomechanics of the Spine: Clinical and Surgical
Perspective. Boca Raton, CRC Press, 1990.
Biomechanical Books, Journals, and Organizations
In the mid-1960s, the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers published a collection of articles on spine biomechanics
in a monograph edited by Y.C. Fung (23). In 1967, Byars,
Contini, and Roberts edited an American Society of Mechanical
Engineers monograph (13), including an introduction by Lissner
with the provocative title “Biomechanics- What is it?” Many
notable biomechanics books have been published since the
1960s. These books were followed by others (1, 6, 24, 26, 60).
The first biomechanics journal, Journal of Biomechanics,
was established in 1967. Currently, many journals publish
biomechanics-related manuscripts. In addition to the wellknown
neurosurgical and orthopedic journals, the following
journals contain articles related to biomechanics:
• Bone
• Clinical Biomechanics
• Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
• Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
• Gait and Posture
• Injury
• Journal of Applied Biomechanics
• Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
• Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
• Journal of Biomechanics
• Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology
• Journal of Human Movement Studies
• Journal of Sport Sciences
• Mathematical Biosciences
• Medical Engineering and Physics
• Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
The development of biomechanical laboratories and the
focused study of biomechanics were energized by the organization
of biomechanics-oriented conferences, the first of which
was the First International Seminar on Biomechanics, which
was organized by the Research Committee of the International
Council of Sports and Physical Education in 1967 and held in
Zurich. Subsequent meetings have been held biannually.
The International Society of Biomechanics was formed in
1973, the European Society of Biomechanics in 1976, the
Canadian Society of Biomechanics in 1973, the American
Society of Biomechanics in 1977, and the Australia New
Zealand Society of Biomechanics in 1996. Other biomechanicsrelated
organizations include the following:
• British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences, United
Kingdom
• Bulgarian Society of Biomechanics, Bulgaria
• Chinese Society of Sports Biomechanics, China
• Comisia de Biomecanica Inginerie si Informatica, Romania
• Czech Society of Biomechanics, Czech Republic
• German Society of Biomechanics, Germany
• Japanese Society of Biomechanics, Japan
• Korean Society of Sport Biomechanics, Korea
• Polish Society of Biomechanics, Poland
• Russian Society of Biomechanics, Russia
• Societ de Biom‚ Canique, France
402 | VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 www.neurosurgery-online.com
NADERI ET AL.
59. Panjabi MM: Three-dimensional mathematical model for the study of the
mechanics of the human vertebral column. J Biomech 6:671–680, 1973.
60. Panjabi MM, White AA: Biomechanics in the Musculoskeletal System. London,
Churchill Livingstone, 2001.
61. Pauwels F: A Collective Treatise on Functional Anatomy of Locomotor Apparatus
[in German]. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1965.
62. Pope MH: Giovanni Alfonso Borelli—the father of biomechanics. Spine
30:2350–2355, 2005.
63. Provencher MT, Abdu WA: Giovanni Alfonso Borelli: “Father of spinal biomechanics.”
Spine 25:131–136, 2000.
64. Richardson JA: History of biomechanics and kinesiology. www.usd.edu/
jarichar/Hist.html. Accessed March 25, 2005.
65. Roaf R: A study of the mechanics of spinal injuries. JBJS 42B:810–823, 1960.
66. Roux W: Collective Treatise on Developmental Mechanics of the Organism [in
German]. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann, 1895.
67. Ruff S: Brief acceleration: Less than one second, in German Aviation Medicine,
World War II. Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office,
1950, vol I, chapter VI-C, pp 584–597.
68. Sanan A, Rengachary SS: The history of spinal biomechanics. Neurosurgery
39:657–669, 1996.
69. Sylven B, Paulson S, Hirsch C, Snellman O: Biophysical and physiological
investigations on cartilage and other mesenchymal tissues. II. The ultrastructure
of bovine and human nuclei pulposi. J Bone Joint Surg Am 33A:333–340,
1951.
70. Thomas HO: Contributions to Medicine and Surgery, Part II, The Principles of
Treatment of Diseased Joints. London, H.K. Lewis, 1883.
71. Turner MJ, Clough RW, Martin HC, Topp LJ: Stiffness and deflection analysis
of complex. structures, J Aero Sci 23:805–824, 1956.
72. Virgin WJ: Experimental investigations into the physical properties of the
intervertebral disc. J Bone Joint Surg 33B:607–611, 1951.
73. von Meyer H: The architecture of the trabecula [in German]. Reichert und
Dubois-Reymonds Arch 34:615–628, 1867.
74. Ward FO: Outlines of Human Osteology. London, Renshaw, 1838, ed 1.
75. Weber EH: Anatomical and physiological tests on some systems of human
spine mechanism [in German]. Arch Anat Physiol 1:240–271, 1827.
76. Weber W, Weber E: Mechanics of the Human Walking Apparatus [in German].
B鰐tingen, Dietrich, 1836.
77. Werne S: Studies in spontaneous atlas dislocation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl
23:1–150, 1957.
78. White AA, Panjabi MM: Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. Philadelphia,
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1990
79. Widas P: Introduction to finite element analysis. http://www.sv.vt.edu/
classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/num/widas/ history.html.
Accessed April 20, 2005.
80. Wolff J: The Law of Bone Remodeling [in German]. Berlin, A Hirschwald, 1892.
COMMENTS
In the second part of this two-part series, the authors continued their
exhaustive review of spinal mechanics. Beginning with Leonardo da
Vinci, the contributions of the Renaissance period are reviewed. da
Vinci not only studied the anatomy of the spine, but also conducted
important and relevant research on the subject of spine mechanics. The
illustrations depicting this work nicely enhance this article. It was interesting
to read about Andreas Vesalius, who fathered much of what we
now call modern anatomy, but it seems that his understanding of the
spine was not very advanced, particularly when compared with the
earlier work of Leonardo da Vinci. I found the section on Giovanni
Borelli to be particularly enlightening, particularly the discussion on
the interrelationship to Malphighi. Borelli’s mathematical studies on
the lever arm effect of muscles were particularly brilliant; his book De
Motu Animalium is justifiably considered the first book on biomechanics.
The illustrations added to the article are particularly helpful in
explaining his views. The authors continue with reviews of the writings
by Hooke, Newton, and the Weber brothers, among others, and nicely
developed the historical theme of spinal biomechanics. There is a won-
27. Gribbin J: Science. A history. London, Penguin books, 2003, pp 1453–2001.
28. Gurdjian ES, Lissner HR: Mechanism of head injury as studied by the cathode
ray oscilloscope: Preliminary report. J Neurosurg 1:393–399, 1944.
29. Gurdjian ES, Webster JE, Lissner HR: Studies on skull fracture, with particular
reference to engineering factors. Am J Surg 78:736–742, 749–751, 1949.
30. Hakim NS, King AI: A three dimensional finite element dynamic response
analysis of a vertebra with experimental verification. J Biomech 12:277–292,
1979.
31. Hardy WG, Lissner HR, Webster JE, Gurdjian ES: Repeated loading tests of
the lumbar spine; a preliminary report. Surg Forum 9:690–695, 1958.
32. Henzel JH: The human spinal column and upward ejection acceleration. An
appraisal of biodynamic implications. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, US
Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Report No. AMRL-TR-66–233,
September 1967.
33. Hess JL, Lombard CV: Theoretical investigations of dynamic response of man
to high vertical accelerations. J Aviation Med 29:66, 1958.
34. Higgins LS: Studies on Vertebral Injuries Sustained during Aircrew Ejection.
Washington, D.C., Office of Naval Research, Contract No. NONR-4675 (00),
May 1965.
35. Hirsch C: Studies on the mechanism of low-back pain. Acta Orthop
Scandinavica 20:261–274, 1951.
36. Hirsch C: The pathogenesis of chondromalacia of the patella. Acta Chir
Scand Suppl 83:1–107, 1944.
37. Hirsch C: The reaction of intervertebral discs to compression forces. J Bone
Joint Surg Am 37A:1188–1196, 1955.
38. Hirsch C, Nachemson A: Clinical observations on the spine in ejected pilots.
Acta Orthop Scand 31:135–145, 1961.
39. Hirsch C, Nachemson A: Clinical observations on the spine in ejected pilots.
Aeromed Acta 34:629–632, 1963.
40. Hirsch C, Nachemson A: New observations on the mechanical behavior of
lumbar discs. Acta Orthop Scandinavica 23:254–283, 1954.
41. Hirsch C, Schajowicz F: Studies on structural changes in the lumbar annulus
fibrosus. Acta Orthop Scand 22:184–231, 1953.
42. Hirt S: What is kinesiology? A historical review. Phys Ther Rev 35:419–426,
1955.
43. Holdsworth F: Fractures, dislocations, and fracture-dislocations of the spine.
J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1534–1551, 1970.
44. Huiskes R, Chao EY: Asurvey of finite element analysis in orthopedic biomechanics:
The first decade. J Biomech 16:385–409, 1983.
45. Deleted in proof.
46. Knoeller SM, Seifried C: Historical perspective: History of spinal surgery.
Spine 25:2838–2843, 2000.
47. Kostuik JP, Errico TJ, Gleason TF, Errico CC: Spinal stabilization of vertebral
column tumors. Spine 13:250–256, 1988.
48. Le Vay D: The history of orthopaedics. Licensed edition, Basel, Roches, 1990,
pp 179–121.
49. Lysell E: Motion in the cervical spine. An experimental study on autopsy
specimens. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 123:1, 1969.
50. Maquet P: Iatrophysics to biomechanics. From Borelli (1608–1679) to Pauwels
(1885–1980). J Joint Bone Surg Br 74:335–339, 1992.
51. Martin RB: A genealogy of biomechanics. http://asb-biomech.or/history/
biomech/. Accessed March 20, 2005.
52. Mow VC, Huiskes R: A brief history of science, and orthopaedic biomechanics,
in Mow VC, Huiskes R (eds): Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics and
Mechanobiology. Philadelphia, Lippincot Williams and Wilkins, 2005, pp 1–28.
53. Nachemson A: Measurement of intradiscal pressure. Acta Orthop Scand
28:269–289, 1959.
54. Nachemson A: Some mechanical properties of the lumbar intervertebral discs.
Bull Hosp Joint Dis 23:130–143, 1962.
55. Nachemson A, Morris J: Lumbar discometry. Lumbar intradiscal pressure
measurements in vivo. Lancet 25:1140–1142, 1963.
56. Nachemson A: The influence of spinal movements on the lumbar intradiscal
pressure and on the tensile stresses in the annulus fibrosus. Acta Orthop
Scand 33:183–207, 1963.
57. Nachemson A: The possible importance of the psoas muscle for stabilization
of the lumbar spine. Acta Orthop Scand 39:47–57, 1968.
58. Deleted in proof.
NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 | 403
HISTORY OF SPINE BIOMECHANICS: PART II
404 | VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2007 www.neurosurgery-online.com
NADERI ET AL.
derful depth of reading material contained in this article. It is an extensive
piece of writing that puts the history of this most interesting subject,
one which all neurosurgeons will enjoy, into print.
James T. Goodrich
Bronx, New York
The authors extensively review the history of biomechanics in this
two-part series. For the most part, the authors have succeeded with
this ambitious undertaking. The understanding of biomechanics of the
spine plays a vital part in the management of spinal disorders. These
two articles describing the history of biomechanics provide a good
foundation for the overall understanding of spinal biomechanics.
Volker K.H. Sonntag
Phoenix, Arizona
As in the first part of this series, this article describing the post-
Renaissance era summarizes an interesting period of invention and
scientific progress. From Leonardo da Vinci to Julius Wolff, several significant
scientific thinkers of this period contributed to many areas other
than medicine or biomechanics, including astronomy, physics, mathematics,
and art. By studying and theorizing on these various fields, some
of the historical figures described in this article serendipitously laid
down the foundation of the understanding of spine biomechanics as we
know it today. These scientists include Sir Isaac Newton, the father of calculus
and the laws of motion, and Thomas Young and Robert Hooke,
who described how these forces interact with solid materials. Although
these contributions did not primarily involve the spine, without them
our ability to understand the effect of our surgical constructs on spine
biomechanics would be greatly limited. During the past century,
progress in spine biomechanics was remarkable. The experience of two
World Wars has certainly accelerated our understanding in this field. The
authors are to be commended for an excellent review of this time period.
Paul Khoueir
Michael Y. Wang
Los Angeles, California
In the current age of science, knowledge, and information, there is a
great risk of our routinely using every new design as an important
technological contribution to patient health. In this new age, the average
life span has increased, which has brought with it an increase in
problems of the spine and degeneration. There are so many great discussions
in spine biomechanics. Very few scientists question the necessity
of these systems. The real value of spine biomechanics could be
better understood if evaluated in conjunction with human physiology
and anatomy. These articles orient us regarding the value of anatomy
in biomechanics by guiding us from the past to the future. Without a
sound knowledge of the history of anatomy, we cannot understand
the present or our future.
To my knowledge, da Vinci was a great artist and performed dissections
on more than 30 cadavers. However, he was influenced by the
works of another preeminent anatomist, Marc Antonio della Torre, as
well as by Luca Pacioli, who was renowned for his knowledge of mathematics
and geometry. Just after da Vinci’s contact with Pacioli, he was
noted as saying, “There can be no certainty unless one can apply one
of the mathematical sciences.”
Yucel Kanpolat
Ankara, Turkey
The authors have provided a comprehensive overview of the history
of spinal biomechanics. They have detailed numerous vignettes
which allow the reader to recognize clinical problems present today
that also had to be tackled in the past centuries. Furthermore, the
authors discuss the basic methods available to the healthcare providers
at that time. The lack of technological advancements of the current
spinal treatments obviously made successful management of these
afflictions much more difficult. Nonetheless, our predecessors managed
to effectively care for their patients in the great majority of cases.
The authors are to be lauded for tracking down these historic references
and bringing them together to tell a cohesive story.
Robert F. Heary
Newark, New Jersey
Second and final meeting between Joe Louis (standing) and Max Schmeling at Yankee Stadium, June 22, 1936. Louis scored the second quickest knockout
in heavyweight title fight history which came at two minutes and four seconds in the opening round.

TOP

你应该搞一些国内名家之类是不是更好一些

TOP

“骨圣”方先之(1906-1968)

方先之(1906-1968),著名的骨科专家和医学教育家,他把毕生精力都献给了祖国的骨科医疗事业,有“骨圣”之称。
   方先之浙江省诸暨人,1906年2月24日生。1925年就读于上海沪江大学医预科,1928年入北京协和医学院就读。1933年毕业后,以成绩优异留校工作九年,作过住院医师、总住院医师、助教、讲师、副教授,并曾到美国进修骨科。
   1941年12月8日,太平洋战争爆发后,北京协和医院被迫停办,方先之与一些协和老同学来到天津,筹办天和医院,意思是天津的协和。天和医院于1942年7月1日开业,方先之负责骨科,兼看外科。接着,方先之又在当地士绅周学熙等人的帮助下成立了天津骨科医院。1944年8月1日,骨科医院在沙士道正式开业,1946年迁至长沙路。由于他医术高超,短短几年内就在天津颇负盛名。这两所医院的建立充实了天津的医疗力量,治愈了不少疑难重症。
   天津解放后,方先之受到了党和政府的关怀,精神焕发地把全部精力倾注于骨科医疗事业中去。1950年抗美援朝战争爆发不久,方先之参加了第一批医疗队。在严冬季节和艰苦条件下,夜以继日地抢救伤员,出色地完成任务后,于1951年返回天津。
   1952年开始,方先之在人民医院任骨科主任,方先之还受聘担任刚刚成立的天津医学院教授。
方先之教授把现代骨科系统建立起来,他把骨科分成了创伤、骨疾病、小儿骨科、手外科、骨肿瘤,作了很多分支。理念非常先进,这不仅在中国而且在世界都是先进的。

    方先之教授在天津创办了骨科高级医师进修班。他为国家培养了六百多名骨科专业人才,这些学员分布在全国各地,早已成为临床技术骨干和骨科学科带头人。如今骨科高级医师进修班已经办到了48期,培养了3000余名骨科专业人才,遍及全国各地。天津医院被誉为:中国骨科医生的摇篮。

    方先之教授早年创办的《骨科进修班通讯》,经过了天津医药杂志骨科副刊的发展过程,成为现在的《中华骨科杂志》,推动了我国骨科医学事业的蓬勃发展。在骨科界专家们公认方先之教授是中国近代骨科的火车头。

   方先之一贯重视培养人才。1953年,在方先之的积极建议和倡导下成立了天津医学院全国骨科医师进修班,教学基地设在天津人民医院,培养学员近2000人,为中国骨科事业发展打下良好基础。现在中国有不少知名专家、技术骨干就是从天津骨科医师进修班毕业的。
  方先之在骨科医疗事业上的成就很多,曾受到高教部和卫生部的表彰。1962年国家科委在天津对方先之领导的“中西医结合治疗骨折”这一重大科研成果进行鉴定,并给予极高评价。1963年9月,方先之以中国医学代表团团员名义出席在意大利罗马召开的第20届国际外科年会,方先之在会上用英语宣读了《骨关节结核病灶清除疗法》和《中西医结合治疗前臂骨折》两篇学术论文,介绍了中国骨科的最新成就,引起与会各国专家的广泛重视。1964年,方先之又随中国医学代表团参加在埃及开罗召开的第一届亚非医学会议,同样取得很大的成功。
   方先之一生著述颇丰。他不仅精通骨科,对内科、外科、病理都有很深的造诣。他曾发表论文84篇,其中,关于骨科的24篇,骨关节结核的11篇,骨肿瘤的7篇,其它33篇,另有9篇是用英文写的。专著有《骨关节结核病灶清除疗法》和《中西医结合治疗骨折》(与尚天裕合作)。
方先之曾任全国人大代表、全国政协委员,天津市人大代表、天津市政协常委,他还担任九三学社中央委员、九三学社天津分社副主委。
   在文化大革命中,方先之受到迫害。1968年年6月29日,方先之因患肝癌,在天津市第一中心医院病逝,时年仅62岁。

[ 本帖最后由 tjbone 于 2008-4-3 07:51 编辑 ]
本帖最近评分记录
  • freddiechen 鸭币 +30 感谢您对鸭绿江的支持 2008-7-8 16:19

TOP

当代的骨科泰斗多多介绍一点吧

TOP

邱贵兴
姓  名:邱贵兴
性  别:男
职  称:主任医师、教授、博士生导师
供职机构:北京协和医院
毕业院校: 中国协和医科大学
单位类别:临床医院
所属科室:骨科
职  务:主任
研究领域: 邱贵兴教授擅长脊柱外科及人工关节疾病的诊治



个人简介: 邱贵兴,男,1942年出生,江苏省无锡市人。1960年考入北京中国协和医科大学(八年制),1982年获硕士学位。1986年曾赴加拿大渥太华大学市民医院骨科,作为访问学者工作一年,在前北美脊柱外科学会主席、世界著名的脊柱外科专家Gorden. Armstrong教授的亲自指导下研修脊柱外科,1987年学成回国,在北京协和医院骨科从事医疗、科研和教学工作。现任中国协和医科大学、北京协和医院外科学系主任、骨科主任、主任医师、教授、博士生导师,获政府特殊津贴的专家,中华医学会骨科分会主任委员,北京医学会骨科学分会主任委员,中华医学会第23届理事会常务理事,北京医学会第17届理事会常务理事,中华骨科杂志主编,中华创伤骨科杂志、中国骨肿瘤骨病杂志、脊柱外科杂志、中国医药导刊副主编、中国骨质疏松杂志、国外医学骨科学分册、中国高等学校学术文摘•医学(英文)、Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery(APOA)、Spine杂志编委、常务编委等职,《人民卫生出版社》专家咨询委员会委员,中欧骨科学术交流委员会中方主席,卫生部国际交流与合作中心理事会理事,中华医学会国际交流与合作工作委员会委员,中国医师协会、吴阶平医学基金会理事。

工作成绩: 邱贵兴教授擅长脊柱外科及关节外科。较早地引入并积极推广CD、TSRH、CDH系统等脊柱固定器在临床上的运用,尤其在脊柱侧凸方面进行了长达20余年临床基础研究,并针对国际上现有各种特发性脊柱侧凸分型的不足,在国际上首次提出脊柱侧凸的中国分型方法(PUMC协和分型),对指导脊柱侧凸的诊治具有重要的临床指导意义,并受到了国内外广大同行的高度关注,使我国的脊柱侧凸治疗达到国际水平。他所领导的课题《特发性脊柱侧凸的系列研究及临床应用》获国家科技进步二等奖。
在关节外科方面开展了大量工作,熟练地完成了大量全膝、全髋关节置换术,使许多股骨头坏死、股骨颈骨折、髋关节创伤、先天性髋关节发育不良、严重类风湿关节炎、严重骨关节炎引起的关节疼痛及功能丧失的患者恢复了日常生活。早在80年代就已报道了全膝关节置换手术。对骨关节炎的病因作了深入细致的实验研究,论文获北京市优秀论文奖。
作为项目负责人开展了特发性脊柱侧凸的协和(PUMC)分型及其临床应用研究、特发性脊柱侧弯相关基因的研究、老年骨关节炎的临床分期及优化防治等7项国家级、7项省部级科研课题,另外还有多项院内课题。
主编、主译《骨科手术学》、《脊柱外科新手术》、《骨质疏松基础与临床》、《高级医师案头丛书-骨科学》、《人工髋关节学》、《高等医药院校八年制规划教材-外科学》等近30部专著。在国内外各种杂志发表论文、评述200余篇,曾荣获国家科学技术二等奖、北京市科学技术二等奖、中华医学科技二等奖、国家教委三等奖、卫生部二等奖等奖项,并多次获得院内医疗成果奖及科技成果奖。
曾被评为中国科协先进个人(2006年)、中央保健工作先进个人(2000年,2005年)、2001年北京市总工会经济技术创新标兵、二OO五年评为中华医学会优秀工作者、北京协和医院优秀教师(2002、2005年度)及2005年中国协和医科大学优秀教师等称号
本帖最近评分记录
  • freddiechen 鸭币 +30 感谢您对鸭绿江的支持 2008-7-8 16:19
学无止境

TOP