# Advances in the Measurement and Interpretation of Intervertebral Motion in the Lumbar Spine: A Scoping Review

## TL;DR

This review categorizes different study types on measuring lumbar spine motion to improve understanding and standardization in spinal research.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a new taxonomy of 11 study types for measuring and interpreting in vivo intervertebral motion in the lumbar spine.

## Key findings

- Forty-nine studies were categorized into six main categories, including normal biomechanics and clinical markers.
- The taxonomy aims to enhance coherence and standardization in spinal motion research and reporting.
- The study highlights the importance of objective measurement technologies and their clinical relevance.

## Abstract

Background: Intervertebral motion is a fundamental aspect of spinal biomechanics, crucial for understanding lumbar spine function, pain mechanisms, and surgical outcomes. Various methods exist for measuring and interpreting it, each with its own advantages, limitations, and specific applications. However, a comprehensive and standard taxonomy of study types for the measurement and interpretation of in vivo intervertebral motion in the lumbar spine is lacking. Objectives: This review aimed to systematically identify, characterise, and categorise the diverse study types deposited in the literature. Eligibility criteria: Only studies in English and of lumbar spine intervertebral motion in living subjects were considered, and only those that employed objective measurement of motion sequences were included. Sources of evidence: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS for articles published between January 2000 and October 2025. Charting methods: After removal of duplicates, all studies were subjected to Title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening of potentially eligible studies. Data selected were charted into tables under the headings: author, year, country, purpose, technology, participants, measurement, interpretation, radiation dosage, and significance of findings. Results: Forty-nine studies were abstracted and are described under 11 study types. These formed a taxonomy constituting the following six categories: normal biomechanical mechanisms, pathological and injury mechanisms, direct kinematic measurement, spinal stabilisation, dynamic radiography, and clinical markers. The resulting taxonomy will serve as a resource for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers by facilitating a more coherent understanding of the field and promoting standardisation in research design and reporting.