Relationship between the small cervical vertebral body and the morbidity of cervical spondylosis

Abstract This study aimed to determine the relationship between the size of the cervical vertebral body and the morbidity of cervical spondylosis, and to examine the characteristics of spondylosis patients with small cervical vertebral bodies. The clinical data and the sagittal reconstructions of computed tomography images of 182 patients with cervical spondylosis were collected retrospectively. Patients included 74 males and 108 females, with a mean age of 31.8 years (range 20–40 years). The Torg–Pavlov ratio and the sagittal diameter of the vertebral body were measured. A Torg–Pavlov ratio above 1.2 was regarded as a small cervical vertebral body (SCVB), and below 1.2 as a nonsmall vertebral body (NSCVB). The NSCVB group was more prone to neurological symptoms than was the SCVB group (P < .05). There was no significant difference in neck pain between the 2 groups (P > .05). Conservative treatment achieved similar recovery rates in the SCVB group and the NSCVB group (81.8% vs 93.6%; P > .05). The rate of symptom (eg, axial neck pain) recurrence and persistence in the SCVB group was significantly higher than in the NSCVB group (P < .05). Our study found that smaller size of the cervical vertebral body is an attributing factor for cervical spondylosis. Patients with smaller cervical vertebral bodies are prone to persistent axial neck pain, but not neurological symptoms.

[1]  N. Aebli,et al.  The Torg-Pavlov ratio for the prediction of acute spinal cord injury after a minor trauma to the cervical spine. , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[2]  A. Binder.  Cervical spondylosis and neck pain , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  W. Young,et al.  CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY: A BRIEF REVIEW OF ITS PATHOPHYSIOLOGY, CLINICAL COURSE, AND DIAGNOSIS , 2007, Neurosurgery.

[4]  Michael G Fehlings,et al.  Pathophysiology of cervical myelopathy. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[5]  Raj D. Rao.  Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  W. Yue,et al.  The Torg–Pavlov Ratio in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Comparative Study Between Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy and a Nonspondylotic, Nonmyelopathic Population , 2001, Spine.

[7]  P. Côté,et al.  The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population. , 2000, Spine.

[8]  P. Côté,et al.  The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey: The Prevalence of Low Back Pain and Related Disability in Saskatchewan Adults , 1998, Spine.

[9]  P. Côté,et al.  The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey: The Prevalence of Neck Pain and Related Disability in Saskatchewan Adults , 1998, Spine.

[10]  S. Imai,et al.  Large vertebral body, in addition to narrow spinal canal, are risk factors for cervical myelopathy. , 1996, Journal of spinal disorders.

[11]  A. Aromaa,et al.  Prevalence, determinants, and consequences of chronic neck pain in Finland. , 1991, American journal of epidemiology.

[12]  N. Bogduk,et al.  The cervical zygapophysial joints as a source of neck pain. , 1988, Spine.

[13]  B. Chappell.  Cervical spinal stenosis: determination with vertebral body ratio method. , 1988, Radiology.

[14]  N. Bogduk,et al.  The Innervation of the Cervical Intervertebral Discs , 1988, Spine.

[15]  H. Pavlov,et al.  Cervical spinal stenosis: determination with vertebral body ratio method. , 1987, Radiology.

[16]  I. Murone.  The importance of the sagittal diameters of the cervical spinal canal in relation to spondylosis and myelopathy. , 1974, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.