Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 249–252 | Cite as

Cervical uncinate process: an anatomic study for anterior decompression of the cervical spine

  • J. Lu
  • N. A. Ebraheim
  • H. Yang
  • M. Skie
  • R. A. Yeasting
Anatomic Bases Of Medical, Radiological And Surgical Techniques

Summary

Morphometric evaluation of 54 dry cervical spines from C3 to C7 (a total of 270 cervical vertebrae) was performed to determine the bony boundaries of the uncinate process for resection of the uncinate process for access to posterolateral osteophytes or herniated disks at the time of anterior cervical diskectomy. The uncinate processes were significantly higher (p<0.01) at the C4 – C6 levels (5.8 ± 1.1 mm to 6.1 ± 1.3 mm) than at the C3 or C7 levels. The distance between the medial and lateral margins of the base of the uncinate process was significantly smaller (p<0.01) at the C3 level (4.9 ± 0.7 mm) than at the C7 level (6.3 ± 0.7 mm). The anteroposterior diameter of the medial margin of the uncinate process decreased gradually from the C5 (12.5 ± 1.5 mm) to C7 levels (11.6 ± 1.3 mm) (p<0.05). The interuncinate distance widened from the C3 (19.2 ± 1.5 mm) to the C7 (24.6 ± 2.1 mm) levels (p<0.01). The mid-anteroposterior diameter of vertebral body increased gradually from the C3 (14.7 ± 1.1 mm) to the C7 levels (16.1 ± 1.5 mm) (p<0.01). The width of the vertebra increased gradually from C3 to C7 (from 19.2 ± 1.8 mm at C3 to 25.6 ± 2.0 mm at C7) (p<0.01). Knowledge of all the aforementioned data may be helpful during anterolateral cervical uncosectomy or uncoforaminotomy.

Key words

Cervical spine Uncinate process Radiculopathy Decompression Anatomy 

Le processus unciné cervical : étude anatomique appliquée à la décompression antérieure de la colonne cervicale

Résumé

Nous avons réalisé l'évaluation morphométrique de 54 colonnes cervicales sèches de C3 à C7 (soit un total de 270 vertèbres cervicales) pour déterminer les limites osseuses du processus unciné, avec application à sa résection pour accéder aux ostéophytes postéro-latéraux ou à une hernie discale au cours d'une discectomie cervicale antérieure. Les processus unciné étaient significativement plus hauts (p<0,01) aux niveaux C4–C6 (de 5,8 ± 1,1 mm, à 6,1 ± 1,3 mm) qu'aux niveaux C3 ou C7. La distance séparant les bords médial et latéral de la base du processus unciné était significativement plus petite (p<0,01) au niveau C3 (4,9 ± 0,7 mm) qu'au niveau C7 (6,3 ± 0,7 mm). Le diamètre sagittal du bord médial du processus unciné diminuait graduellement du niveau C5 (12,5 ± 1,5 mm) au niveau C7 (11,6 ± 1,3 mm) (p<0,05). La distance séparant les processus uncinés augmentait du niveau C3 (19,2 ± 1,5 mm) au niveau C7 (24,6 ± 2,1 mm) (p<0,01). Le diamètre sagittal médian du corps vertébral augmentait graduellement du niveau C3 (14,7 ± 1,1 mm) au niveau C7 (16,1 ± 1,5 mm) (p<0,01). La largeur de la vertèbre augmentait graduellement du niveau C3 (19,2 ± 1,8 mm) au niveau C7 (25,6 ± 2,0 mm) (p<0,01). Les renseignements ainsi obtenus peuvent être utiles au cours des uncusectomies et des uncusoforaminotomies cervicales antéro-latérales.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bollati A, Galli G, Gangolfini M, Marini G, Gatta G (1983) Microsurgical anterior cervical disk removal without interbody infusion. Surg Neurol 19: 329–333Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breig A, Turnbull I, Hassler O (1966) Effects of mechanical stresses on the spinal cord in cervical spondylosis. A study on fresh cadaver material. J Neurosurg 25: 45–56Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brigham CD, Tsahakis PJ (1995) Anterior cervical foraminotomy and fusion: surgical technique and results. Spine 20: 766–770Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15: 602–617Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hakuba A (1976) Trans-unco-diskal approach. A combined anterior and lateral approach to cervical disks. J Neurosurg 45: 284–291Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hankinson HL, Wilson CB (1975) Use of the operative microscope in anterior cervical diskectomy with fusion. J Neurosurg 43: 453–456Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kadoya S (1985) Microsurgical anterior osteophytectomy for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy. In: Rand RW (ed) Microneurosurgery, 3rd edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 791–798Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kehr P (1981) Les traitements chirurgicaux des syndromes cervicocéphaliques et des syndromes cervicobrachialgiques. Ther Umsch 38: 660–667Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kehr P (1982) Die Chirurgie der Arteria vertebralis bei unkarthrotischen und posttraumatischen Zervikal-Syndromen. Manuelle Medizin 20: 115–122Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kehr P (1987) Combined anterolateral and anteromedial approaches of lower cervical spine. Methods, indications, results in 55 cases. In: Kehr P, Weidner A (eds) Cervical spine I. Springer, Vienna New York, pp 297–303Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kehr P (1991) Anterolateral and anteromedial combined approaches in the surgical management of cervical osteoarthrosis. In: Denaro E (ed) Stenosis of the cervical spine. Causes, diagnosis and treatment. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 208–223, 288–289Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kehr P, Lang H, Mathevon H, Mandelbaum A (1979) Uncusektomie und Uncoforaminektomie, Uncusektomie und Uncoforaminektomie. 10-Jahres-Resultate. Orthopäde 8: 215–217Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kehr P, Lang G, Moncade N (1981) Die Unkusektomie und Unkoforaminektomie nach Jung mit oder ohne intersomatische Fusion. Indikationen und Resultate. Z Orthop 119: 612–619Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lang J (1993) Skeletal system of the cervical spine. In: Lang J (ed) Clinical anatomy of the cervical spine. Thieme, New York, pp 53–54Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lesoin F, Biondi A, Jomin M (1987) Foraminal cervical herniated disk treated by anterior diskoforaminotomy. Neurosurgery 21: 334–338Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manabe S, Tateishi A, Ohno T (1988) Anterolateral uncoforaminotomy for cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Acta Orthop Scand 59: 669–674Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ou Y, Lu J, Mi J, Cheng L, Zhang J, Li Y, Sheng N (1994) Extensive anterior decompression for mixed cervical spondylosis. Spine 19: 2651–2657Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Panjabi MM, Duranceau J, Goel V, et al (1991) Cervical human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions. Spine 16: 861–869Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Anterior cervical disk removal and interbody fusion for cervical disk syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96: 223–224Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Synder GM, Bernhardt AM (1989) Anterior cervical fractional interspace decompression for treatment of cervical radiculopathy. A review of the first 66 cases. Clin Orthop 246: 92–99Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Verbiest H (1968) A lateral approach to the cervical spine: technique and indications. J Neurosurg 28: 191–203Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yamamoto I, Ikeda A, Shibuya N, Tsugane R, Sato O (1991) Clinical long-term results of anterior diskectomy without interbody fusion for cervical disk disease. Spine 16: 272–9Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yonenobu K, Okada K, Fuji T, Fujiwara K, Yamashita K, Ono, K (1986) Causes of neurologic deterioration following surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine 11: 818–823Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Lu
    • 1
  • N. A. Ebraheim
    • 1
  • H. Yang
    • 1
  • M. Skie
    • 1
  • R. A. Yeasting
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical College of OhioToledoUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnatomyMedical College of OhioToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations