Cervical spinal canal stenosis: the differences between stenosis at the lower cervical and multiple segment levels
- 297 Downloads
The lower cervical segments are commonly the level responsible for cervical spondylotic myelopathy; however, we rarely encounter stenosis at the upper cervical segment in a clinical setting. We assumed that there might be some differences between the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying the development of cervical canal stenosis at different segments. We performed positional MRI in the weight-bearing position for 295 consecutive symptomatic patients. All subjects were classified into four groups (A: normal; B: C3-4 stenosis; C: C5-6 stenosis; D: two-level cervical segments stenosis, stenosis at C3-4 and C5-6). Age, sagittal cervical canal diameter, cervical intervertebral disc degeneration, cervical cord compression, and cervical mobilities were evaluated for each group. Group B showed a narrow cervical spinal canal structure at the C3 to C4 pedicle levels, while groups C and D showed narrow structures at the C4 to C6 pedicle levels in the cervical spine. Additionally, the sagittal cervical canal diameters at all pedicle levels, except C7, in group D were significantly smaller than those observed in group C. We demonstrated the differences in the pathogenetic processes for the development of cervical spinal canal stenosis between C3-4, C5-6, and two-level cervical segments stenosis. Our results suggest that the developmental morphological structure of the cervical spinal canal plays an important role in the development of cervical canal stenosis at different segments. Moreover, individuals with sagittal cervical canal diameters of less than 13 mm may be exposed to an increased risk for future development of cervical spinal canal stenosis at the upper cervical segments following stenosis at the lower cervical segments.
KeywordsCervical Spine Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Cervical Canal Cervical Segment Functional Spinal Unit
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.Torg JS, Naranja RJ Jr, Pavlov H, Galinat BJ, Warren R, Stine RA (1996) The relationship of developmental narrowing of the cervical spinal canal to reversible and irreversible injury of the cervical spinal cord in football players. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 78:1308–1314Google Scholar
- 5.Bailey RW (1974) The cervical spine. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
- 8.DePalma A, Rothman R (1970) The intervertebral disc. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA, pp 35–46Google Scholar
- 9.Friedenberg ZB, Miller WT (1963) Degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine: A comparative study of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 45:1171–1178Google Scholar
- 10.Heller JG (2002) Surgical treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. Orthopaedic Knowledge Update, Spine 2. AAOS, 32, pp 299-309Google Scholar