Normative Segment-Specific Axial and Coronal Angulation Corridors of Subaxial Cervical Column in Axial Rotation

Study Design. In contrast to clinical studies wherein loading magnitudes are indeterminate, experiments permit controlled and quantifiable moment applications, record kinematics in multiple planes, and allow derivation of moment-angulation corridors. Axial and coronal moment-angulation corridors were determined at every level of the subaxial cervical spine, expressed as logarithmic functions, and level-specificity of range of motion and neutral zones were evaluated. Objective. Hypothesis: segmental primary axial and coupled coronal motions do not vary by level. Summary of Background Data. Although it is known that cervical spine responses are coupled, segment-specific corridors of axial and coronal kinematics under axial twisting moments from healthy normal spines are not reported. Methods. Ten human cadaver columns (23–44 years, mean: 34 ± 6.8) were fixed at the ends and targets were inserted to each vertebra to obtain kinematics in axial and coronal planes. The columns were subjected to pure axial twisting moments. Range of motion and neutral zone for primary-axial and coupled-coronal rotation components were determined at each spinal level. Data were analyzed using factorial analysis of variance. Moment-rotation angulations were expressed using logarithmic functions, and mean ±1 standard deviation corridors were derived at each level for both components. Results. Moment-angulations responses were nonlinear. Each segmental curve for both components was well represented by a logarithmic function (r2 > 0.95). Factorial analysis of variance indicated that the biomechanical metrics are spinal level-specific (P < 0.05). Conclusion. Axial and coronal angulations of cervical spinal columns show statistically different level-specific responses. The presentation of moment-angulation corridors for both metrics forms a dataset for the normal population. These segment-specific nonlinear corridors may help clinicians assess dysfunction or instability. These data will assist mathematical models of the spine in improved validation and lead to efficacious design of stabilizing systems.

[1]  H N Herkowitz,et al.  A Biomechanical Comparison of Cervical Laminaplasty and Cervical Laminectomy with Progressive Facetectomy , 1993, Spine.

[2]  J. J. Santin,et al.  Three-dimensional biomechanical properties of the human cervical spine in vitro , 1993, European Spine Journal.

[3]  A. Schultz,et al.  Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  W. Southwick,et al.  Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. , 1977, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  Manohar M. Panjabi,et al.  A Method to Simulate In Vivo Cervical Spine Kinematics Using In Vitro Compressive Preload , 2002, Spine.

[6]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  V. Goel,et al.  Uncinate processes and Luschka joints influence the biomechanics of the cervical spine: Quantification using a finite element model of the C5‐C6 segment , 1997, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[8]  V K Goel,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of Caspar and Cervical Spine Locking Plate systems in a cadaveric model. , 1996, Journal of neurosurgery.

[9]  Narayan Yoganandan,et al.  Validation of a clinical finite element model of the human lumbosacral spine , 2006, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[10]  Glenn R. Paskoff,et al.  Trabecular bone density of male human cervical and lumbar vertebrae. , 2006, Bone.

[11]  Narayan Yoganandan,et al.  Bone Mineral Density of Human Female Cervical and Lumbar Spines From Quantitative Computed Tomography , 2006, Spine.

[12]  Y. K. Liu,et al.  Cervical Spine Stiffness and Geometry of the Young Human Male , 1982 .

[13]  Yoshinobu Sato,et al.  Kinematics of the Upper Cervical Spine in Rotation: In Vivo Three-Dimensional Analysis , 2004, Spine.

[14]  V K Goel,et al.  Kinematics of the cervical spine: Effects of multiple total laminectomy and facet wiring , 1988, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[15]  M. M. Panjabi,et al.  Functional diagnostics of the cervical spine using computer tomography , 2004, Neuroradiology.

[16]  E. Lysell Motion in the cervical spine. An experimental study on autopsy specimens. , 1969, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[17]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Effects of Walking Gait on Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Damage in Unicompartmental Knee Systems: A Finite Element Study , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  F. Lavaste,et al.  Three-dimensional biomechanical properties of the human cervical spine in vitro , 1993, European Spine Journal.

[19]  N. Yoganandan,et al.  Finite element applications in human cervical spine modeling. , 1996, Spine.

[20]  J. Cholewicki,et al.  Mechanical Properties of the Human Cervical Spine as Shown by Three-Dimensional Load–Displacement Curves , 2001, Spine.

[21]  V. Goel,et al.  An in-vitro study of the kinematics of the normal, injured and stabilized cervical spine. , 1984, Journal of biomechanics.

[22]  M M Panjabi,et al.  Cervical Spine Stabilization: A Three‐Dimensional, Biomechanical Evaluation of Rotational Stability, Strength, ami Failure Mechanisms , 1991, Spine.

[23]  J Rotés Querol,et al.  [The cervical spine]. , 1992, Medicina clinica.

[24]  N. Crawford,et al.  Biomechanical Effects of Progressive Anterior Cervical Decompression , 2001, Spine.

[25]  V. Goel,et al.  Kinematics of the Cervical Spine Following Discectomy and Stabilization , 1989, Spine.

[26]  V K Goel,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of anterior Caspar plate and three-level posterior fixation techniques in a human cadaveric model. , 1993, Journal of neurosurgery.

[27]  L. Claes,et al.  Load-displacement properties of the normal and injured lower cervical spine in vitro , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[28]  S. Sepic,et al.  Roentgenographic Findings of the Cervical Spine in Asymptomatic People , 1986, Spine.

[29]  B L Currier,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Anterior Cervical Spine Stabilization , 1998, Spine.

[30]  Darryl D. D'Lima,et al.  Impact of Patellofemoral Design on Patellofemoral Forces and Polyethylene Stresses , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  L. Claes,et al.  Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[32]  Narayan Yoganandan,et al.  Experimental flexion/extension data corridors for validation of finite element models of the young, normal cervical spine. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[33]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Polymer insert stress in total knee designs during high-flexion activities: a finite element study. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[34]  H. Ng,et al.  Biomechanical Effects of C2–C7 Intersegmental Stability due to Laminectomy With Unilateral and Bilateral Facetectomy , 2004, Spine.

[35]  L Penning,et al.  Rotation of the Cervical Spine: A CT Study in Normal Subjects , 1987, Spine.