Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 2799–2806 | Cite as

The evaluation of cervical spine mobility without significant spondylosis by kMRI

  • Chengjie Xiong
  • Akinobu Suzuki
  • Michael D. Daubs
  • Trevor Scott
  • Kevin Phan
  • Jeffrey WangEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Study design

Retrospective analysis of kinetic magnetic resonance images (kMRI).

Objective

To analyse the kinematics of cervical spine inpatients without significant spondylosis and to understand the normal movement of the cervical spine as reference for future comparison.

Summary of background data

Although some studies have been conducted to describe the normal mobility of the cervical spine, prior studies did not establish a relationship between the kinematics of cervical spine and disc degeneration. Only a few studies of the kinematics of the non-degenerated cervical spine have been reported; however, they focused on single level and not all the levels of cervical spine.

Methods

468 symptomatic patients underwent upright cervical kMRI, and cervical disc degeneration was evaluated with a new grading system. This grading system consists of four grades (0–III), and the cervical spines with grade 0 and grade I discs were included in this study. Finally, 61 symptomatic patients were studied 34 male and 27 female with an average age of 41.9 years. kMRI was used to define the normal mobility of the cervical spine by calculating the translation motion, angular variation and percentage angular contribution to the total cervical spine.

Results

The translation motion of the cervical spine at each level was 0.85 ± 1.22 mm at C2/3, 1.05 ± 1.19 mm at C3/4, 0.63 ± 1.19 mm at C4/5, 0.57 ± 0.91 mm at C5/6, 0.16 ± 0.86 mm at C6/7 and −0.11 ± 0.81 at C7/T1. In general, the translation motion decreased from proximal segment to distal segment. The angular variation of the cervical spine at each level was 5.58 ± 3.86° at C2/3, 8.26 ± 4.81° at C3/4, 9.11 ± 4.87° at C4/5, 10.05 ± 5.26° at C5/6, 8.31 ± 4.30° at C6/7 and 4.87 ± 3.28 ° at C7/T1. The angular variation at C2/3 and C7/T1 was significantly lower compared to other levels (P < 0.05). The contribution of each cervical level to the total angular mobility of cervical spine was the greatest at C5/6 (21.68 ± 10.31 %) and least at C7/T1 (11.11 ± 7.60 %) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the normal cervical segmental mobility for the entire cervical spine using kMRI. These results will be helpful to understand the normal mobility of the cervical spine and for understanding the relationship between kinematics of the cervical spine and disc degeneration for future comparisons.

Keywords

KMRI Cervical spine Disc degeneration Normal mobility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Dr Yanlin Tan from Xiangya Second Affiliated Hospital of South-central University for assistance with the study design and statistics.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Dreyer SJ, Boden SD (1998) Nonoperative treatment of neck and arm pain. Spine 23(24):2746–2754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, Watanabe K, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Fujiwara H, Momoshima S, Nishiwaki Y, Iwanami A (2010) Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine 35(1):36–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hwang S-H, Kayanja M, Milks RA, Benzel EC (2007) Biomechanical comparison of adjacent segmental motion after ventral cervical fixation with varying angles of lordosis. Spine J 7(2):216–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frobin W, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, Brinckmann P (2002) Sagittal plane segmental motion of the cervical spine. A new precision measurement protocol and normal motion data of healthy adults. Clin Biomech 17(1):21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Penning L (1978) Normal movements of the cervical spine. Am J Roentgenol 130(2):317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26(17):1873–1878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suzuki A DM, Hayashi T, Ruangchainikom M, Xiong C, Phan K, Scott TP, Wang JC (2014) Magnetic resonance classification system of cervical intervertebral disc degeneration—its validity and meaning. J Spinal Disord TechGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morishita Y, Hida S, Miyazaki M, Hong S-W, Zou J, Wei F, Naito M, Wang JC (2008) The effects of the degenerative changes in the functional spinal unit on the kinematics of the cervical spine. Spine 33(6):E178–E182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bogduk N, Mercer S (2000) Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal kinematics. Clin Biomech 15(9):633–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miyazaki M, Hong SW, Yoon SH, Zou J, Tow B, Alanay A, Abitbol J-J, Wang JC (2008) Kinematic analysis of the relationship between the grade of disc degeneration and motion unit of the cervical spine. Spine 33(2):187–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fei Z, Fan C, Ngo S, Xu J, Wang J (2011) Dynamic evaluation of cervical disc herniation using kinetic MRI. J Clin Neurosci 18(2):232–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miyazaki M, Hong SW, Yoon SH, Morishita Y, Wang JC (2008) Reliability of a magnetic resonance imaging-based grading system for cervical intervertebral disc degeneration. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(4):288–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reitman CA, Mauro KM, Nguyen L, Ziegler JM, Hipp JA (2004) Intervertebral motion between flexion and extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 29(24):2832–2843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim T-H, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27(22):2431–2434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watanabe S, Inoue N, Yamaguchi T, Hirano Y, Orías AAE, Nishida S, Hirose Y, Mizuno J (2012) Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the cervical spine after anterior cervical decompression and fusion at an adjacent level: a preliminary report. Eur Spine J 21(5):946–955PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruangchainikom M, Daubs MD, Suzuki A, Hayashi T, Weintraub G, Lee CJ, Inoue H, Tian H, Aghdasi B, Scott TP (2014) Effect of cervical kyphotic deformity type on the motion characteristics and dynamic spinal cord compression. Spine 39(12):932–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chengjie Xiong
    • 1
  • Akinobu Suzuki
    • 2
  • Michael D. Daubs
    • 2
  • Trevor Scott
    • 2
  • Kevin Phan
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Wang
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Orthopaedic DepartmentWuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou CommandWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Spine CenterUniversity of South CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations