Investigating Fryette’s mechanics in computed tomography scans: an analysis of vertebrae spinal physiology using open-sourced datasets and three-dimensional vertebral orientation

Abstract

Abstract Context Fryette’s mechanics is taught as a simplistic model of coupled vertebral movement, fundamental in osteopathic practice. This study seeks to better understand the likelihood of Fryette’s model by calculating vertebral orientation in computed tomography (CT) scans. Given previous findings of low angular coupled movements during overall spinal motion, static calculations provide a unique perspective on the likelihood of Fryette’s mechanics. Objectives This analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of Fryette’s principles in predicting vertebral positioning in CT scans by comparing their 3-dimensional (3D) orientation to movements described by Fryette. Methods 3D models of 953 thoracic and lumbar vertebrae were obtained from 82 CT scans within the VerSe`20 open-source dataset. A stepwise algorithm generated three unique symmetry planes for each vertebra, offering 3D angular orientation with respect to the vertebral level below. A total of 422 vertebrae were omitted from the analysis due to the presence of pathologies significant enough to affect their motion, inaccurate symmetry plane calculations, or absence of vertebral level below. The remaining 531 vertebra were analyzed to compare quantitative coupled positioning against expected coupled spinal movements in line with Fryette’s mechanics. One-sample proportional z-scoring was implemented for all vertebral levels with an ∝=0.05 and a null hypothesis of Fryette’s primed positioning occurring by chance of 50 %. Further analysis was performed with individual z-scoring for each individual level to see which levels were statistically significant. Results Data from the VerSe`20 dataset revealed that 56.9 % of successfully analyzed vertebrae demonstrated positions compatible with Fryette’s mechanics (p=0.0014, power=89 %). The 302 vertebral levels that did display coupled positioning consisted of Type I (166 vertebrae) and Type II (136 vertebrae) compatible with Fryette’s mechanics. Levels that demonstrated statistical significance consisted of T5 (p=0, power=99 %), T6 (p=0.0023, power=77 %), T7 (p=0.041, power=46 %), and T10 (p=0.017, power=60 %). Conclusions Our analysis suggests that the static positions of vertebrae in CT scans may align with Fryette’s descriptions, although not very often. Notably, vertebral levels T5–T7 and T10 exhibit strong evidence of their static positions aligning with expected movements, warranting further investigation into the Fryette phenomenon at these levels. Future studies should explore the dynamic implications of these findings to enhance our understanding of spinal biomechanics.