Literature DB >> 23515984

Six-degrees-of-freedom cervical spine range of motion during dynamic flexion-extension after single-level anterior arthrodesis: comparison with asymptomatic control subjects.

William J Anderst1, Joon Y Lee, William F Donaldson, James D Kang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The etiology of adjacent-segment disease following cervical spine arthrodesis remains controversial. The objective of the current study was to evaluate cervical intervertebral range of motion during dynamic flexion-extension in patients who had undergone a single-level arthrodesis and in asymptomatic control subjects.
METHODS: Ten patients who had undergone a single-level (C5/C6) anterior arthrodesis and twenty asymptomatic control subjects performed continuous full range-of-motion flexion-extension while biplane radiographs were collected at thirty images per second. A previously validated tracking process determined three-dimensional vertebral position on each pair of radiographs with submillimeter accuracy. Six-degrees-of-freedom kinematics between adjacent vertebrae were calculated throughout the entire flexion-extension movement cycle over multiple trials for each participant. Cervical kinematics were also calculated from images collected during static full flexion and static full extension.
RESULTS: The C4/C5 motion segment moved through a larger extension range of motion and a smaller flexion range of motion in the subjects with the arthrodesis than in the controls. The extension difference between the arthrodesis and control groups was 3.8° (95% CI [confidence interval], 0.9° to 6.6°; p = 0.011) and the flexion difference was -2.9° (95% CI, -5.3° to -0.5°; p = 0.019). Adjacent-segment posterior translation was greater in the arthrodesis group than in the controls, with a C4/C5 difference of 0.8 mm (95% CI, 0.0 to 1.6 mm) and a C6/C7 difference of 0.4 mm (95% CI, 0.0 to 0.8 mm; p = 0.016). Translation range of motion and rotation range of motion were consistently larger when measured on images collected during dynamic functional movement as opposed to images collected at static full flexion or full extension. The upper 95% CI limit for anterior-posterior translation range of motion was 3.45 mm at C3/C4 and C4/C5, but only 2.3 mm at C6/C7.
CONCLUSIONS: C5/C6 arthrodesis does not affect the total range of motion in adjacent vertebral segments, but it does alter the distribution of adjacent-segment motion toward more extension and less flexion superior to the arthrodesis and more posterior translation superior and inferior to the arthrodesis during in vivo functional loading. Range of motion measured from static full-flexion and full-extension images underestimates dynamic range of motion. Clinical evaluation of excessive anterior-posterior translation should take into account the cervical vertebral level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23515984      PMCID: PMC3748975          DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01733

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  56 in total

Review 1.  Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: Normal kinematics.

Authors:  N Bogduk; S Mercer
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International Society of Biomechanics.

Authors:  Ge Wu; Sorin Siegler; Paul Allard; Chris Kirtley; Alberto Leardini; Dieter Rosenbaum; Mike Whittle; Darryl D D'Lima; Luca Cristofolini; Hartmut Witte; Oskar Schmid; Ian Stokes
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion.

Authors:  Jason C Eck; S Craig Humphreys; Tae-Hong Lim; Soon Tack Jeong; Jesse G Kim; Scott D Hodges; Howard S An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate.

Authors:  Denis J DiAngelo; James T Roberston; Newton H Metcalf; Bobby J McVay; R Champ Davis
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2003-08

5.  The quantitative measurements of the intervertebral angulation and translation during cervical flexion and extension.

Authors:  Shyi-Kuen Wu; Li-Chieh Kuo; Haw-Chang H Lan; Sen-Wei Tsai; Chiung-Ling Chen; Fong-Chin Su
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-04-27       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go?

Authors:  John S Schwab; Denis J Diangelo; Kevin T Foley
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Segmental motion adjacent to anterior cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study.

Authors:  Frode Kolstad; Øystein P Nygaard; Gunnar Leivseth
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Sagittal plane segmental motion of the cervical spine. A new precision measurement protocol and normal motion data of healthy adults.

Authors:  W Frobin; G Leivseth; M Biggemann; P Brinckmann
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.063

Review 9.  Natural history of the aging spine.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Biomechanics of the aging spine.

Authors:  Stephen J Ferguson; Thomas Steffen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-09       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  16 in total

1.  Cervical spine intervertebral kinematics with respect to the head are different during flexion and extension motions.

Authors:  William J Anderst; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; James D Kang
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Comparative Study Between M6-C and Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement: Biomechanical Outcomes and Comparison with Normative Data.

Authors:  My Pham; Kevin Phan; Ian Teng; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.071

3.  In vivo cervical facet joint capsule deformation during flexion-extension.

Authors:  William J Anderst; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; James D Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Intubation Biomechanics: Clinical Implications of Computational Modeling of Intervertebral Motion and Spinal Cord Strain during Tracheal Intubation in an Intact Cervical Spine.

Authors:  Benjamin C Gadomski; Bradley J Hindman; Mitchell I Page; Franklin Dexter; Christian M Puttlitz
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 7.892

5.  Continuous cervical spine kinematics during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension.

Authors:  William J Anderst; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; James D Kang
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Intubation Biomechanics: Laryngoscope Force and Cervical Spine Motion during Intubation in Cadavers-Cadavers versus Patients, the Effect of Repeated Intubations, and the Effect of Type II Odontoid Fracture on C1-C2 Motion.

Authors:  Bradley J Hindman; Robert P From; Ricardo B Fontes; Vincent C Traynelis; Michael M Todd; M Bridget Zimmerman; Christian M Puttlitz; Brandon G Santoni
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Sensitivity, reliability and accuracy of the instant center of rotation calculation in the cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension.

Authors:  Emma Baillargeon; William J Anderst
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2013-01-12       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Cervical motion segment percent contributions to flexion-extension during continuous functional movement in control subjects and arthrodesis patients.

Authors:  William J Anderst; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; James D Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Cervical disc deformation during flexion-extension in asymptomatic controls and single-level arthrodesis patients.

Authors:  William Anderst; William Donaldson; Joon Lee; James Kang
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  Novel assessment of the variation in cervical inter-vertebral motor control in a healthy pain-free population.

Authors:  René Lindstrøm; Alexander Breen; Ning Qu; Alister du Rose; Victoria Blogg Andersen; Alan Breen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.