Cargando…

Normal intervertebral segment rotation of the subaxial cervical spine: An invivo study of dynamic neck motions

BACKGROUND: Accurate knowledge of the intervertebral center of rotation (COR) and its corresponding range of motion (ROM) can help understand development of cervical pathology and guide surgical treatment. METHODS: Ten asymptomatic subjects were imaged using MRI and dual fluoroscopic imaging techniq...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, Yan, Li, Jing-Sheng, Guo, Tao, Lang, Zhao, Kang, James D., Cheng, Liming, Li, Guoan, Cha, Thomas D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Chinese Speaking Orthopaedic Society 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6718920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31508305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2018.12.002
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Accurate knowledge of the intervertebral center of rotation (COR) and its corresponding range of motion (ROM) can help understand development of cervical pathology and guide surgical treatment. METHODS: Ten asymptomatic subjects were imaged using MRI and dual fluoroscopic imaging techniques during dynamic extension-flexion-extension (EFE) and axial left-right-left (LRL) rotation. The intervertebral segment CORs and ROMs were measured from C34 to C67, as the correlations between two variables were analyzed as well. RESULTS: During the EFE motion, the CORs were located at 32.4 ± 20.6%, -2.4 ± 11.7%, 21.8 ± 12.5% and 32.3 ± 25.5% posteriorly, and the corresponding ROMs were 13.8 ± 4.3°, 15.1 ± 5.1°, 14.4 ± 7.0° and 9.2 ± 4.3° from C34 to C67. The ROM of C67 was significantly smaller than other segments. The ROMs were not shown to significantly correlate to COR locations (r = −0.243, p = 0.132). During the LRL rotation cycle, the average CORs were at 85.6 ± 18.2%, 32.3 ± 25.3%, 15.7 ± 12.3% and 82.4 ± 31.3% posteriorly, and the corresponding ROMs were 3.5 ± 1.7°, 6.9 ± 3.8°, 9.6 ± 4.1° and 2.6 ± 2.5° from C34 to C67. The ROMs of C34 and C67 was significantly smaller than those of C45 and C56. A more posterior COR was associated with a less ROM during the neck rotation (r = −0.583, p < 0.001). The ROMs during EFE were significantly larger than those during LRL in each intervertebral level. CONCLUSION: The CORs and ROMs of the subaxial cervical intervertebral segments were segment level- and neck motion-dependent during the in-vivo neck motions. THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE: Our study indicates that the subaxial cervical intervertebral CORs and ROMs were segment level- and neck motion-dependent. This may help to improve the artificial disc design as well as surgical technique by which the neck functional motion is restored following the cervical arthroplasty.