Literature DB >> 8923625

Anatomic changes of the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen associated with flexion-extension movement.

A Inufusa1, H S An, T H Lim, T Hasegawa, V M Haughton, B H Nowicki.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A cadaveric study was done to analyze the dimensional changes in the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen of the lumber spine with flexion and extension movements.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between flexion and extension movements and morphologic changes in the spinal canal and the intervertebral foramen. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have reported that the dimensions of the spinal canal and the intervertebral foramen may change significantly with motion. The purpose of this study was to assess the quantitative changes in the spinal canal and the intervertebral foramen with segmental flexion-extension movements.
METHODS: Nineteen fresh cadaveric spines yielding 25 motion segments were used. The lumbar motion segments were frozen and then imaged in axial and sagittal projections by a computed tomography scanner. They were thawed then, and the motion segments were loaded to 5.7 Nm in flexion (13 motion segments) and in extension (12 motion segments) specimens. While in flexion or extension, the specimens again were frozen and imaged by computed tomography scan. The frozen specimens than were sliced using a cryomicrotome in the sagittal plane to study the dimensions of the intervertebral foramen. Eighteen other fresh cadaveric spines were sliced sagittally for study in the neutral position.
RESULTS: The axial computed tomography scans showed that extension significantly decreased the canal area, midsagittal diameter, and subarticular sagittal diameter, whereas flexion had the opposite effects. The sagittal computed tomography scans showed that extension decreased all the foraminal dimensions significantly, whereas flexion increased all the foraminal dimensions significantly. The translational changes were associated with the bulging of the disc and the presence of traction spurs. The cryomicrotome sections showed the cross-sectional area of the foramen to be 12% greater for the flexion group and 15% smaller for the extension group than the cross-sectional area of the neutral group. Nerve root compression in the foramen was found to be 21.0% in neutral, 15.4% in flexion, and 33.3% in extension groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The study supports the concept of dynamic spinal stenosis. In addition to static anatomic changes, careful dynamic studies may be required to evaluate better the central canal and the foramen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8923625     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199611010-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  55 in total

1.  The effect of the X-Stop implantation on intervertebral foramen, segmental spinal canal length and disc space in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Zongmiao Wan; Shaobai Wang; Michal Kozanek; Qun Xia; Frederick L Mansfield; Guohua Lü; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Lumbar root compression in the lateral recess: MR imaging, conventional myelography, and CT myelography comparison with surgical confirmation.

Authors:  Walter S Bartynski; Luke Lin
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Clinical perspectives on secular trends of intervertebral foramen diameters in an industrialized European society.

Authors:  Frank J Rühli; Maciej Henneberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability.

Authors:  Johannes Holinka; Petra Krepler; Michael Matzner; Josef G Grohs
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  [Treatment of dynamic spinal canal stenosis with an interspinous spacer].

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Franziska Heider; Rudolf Beisse; H Michael Mayer; Andreas Korge
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.154

6.  Lumbar spinal canal stenosis-special features.

Authors:  P Gopinathan
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-06-16

7.  Upright, weight-bearing, dynamic-kinetic MRI of the spine: initial results.

Authors:  J Randy Jinkins; Jay S Dworkin; Raymond V Damadian
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Loading is more effective than posture in lumbar spinal stenosis: a study with a treadmill equipment.

Authors:  Hasan Oğuz; Funda Levendoğlu; Tunç Cevat Oğün; Aysenur Tantuğ
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-02-02       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results.

Authors:  J F Zucherman; K Y Hsu; C A Hartjen; T F Mehalic; D A Implicito; M J Martin; D R Johnson; G A Skidmore; P P Vessa; J W Dwyer; S Puccio; J C Cauthen; R M Ozuna
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Adjacent double-nerve root contributions in unilateral lumbar radiculopathy.

Authors:  W S Bartynski; M D Kang; W E Rothfus
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.