MRI kinematic analysis of T1 sagittal motion between cervical flexion and extension positions in 145 patients

  • Koji Tamai
  • Zorica Buser
  • Permsak Paholpak
  • Kittipong Sessumpun
  • Patrick C. Hsieh
  • Hiroaki Nakamura
  • Jeffrey C. Wang
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Although the T1 vertebra is considered as an important factor of cervical balance, little is known about its motion between flexion and extension. The purpose of present study was to analyze the T1 sagittal motion using kinematic magnetic resonance imaging (kMRI), and to identify factors that relate to T1 sagittal motion.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 145 kMR images taken in weight-bearing neutral, flexion and extension positions. Cervical balance parameters were evaluated in each position. The degree of T1 sagittal motion was defined as [(T1 slope at extension) − (T1 slope at flexion)]. All patients were divided into three groups: Positive group (T1 followed the head motion, T1 sagittal motion > 5°), Stable group (5 ≥, ≥ − 5) and Negative group (T1 moved in the opposite direction from the head motion, > − 5). The groups were compared and multivariate logistic regression analysis was calculated.

Results

There were 57 (40%) patients in the positive, 56 (39%) in the stable and 32 (22%) in the negative group. The positive group had the largest C2–7 sagittal vertical axis in flexion (p < 0.001) and the shortest in the extension (p = 0.023). Similar trends were seen in cranial tilt and cervical tilt. The value of T1 height < 27 mm was a significant independent factor for the negative group (p = 0.008, adjusted odds ratio = 5.958).

Conclusion

Based on T1 sagittal motion, 40% of the patients were classified in positive group (the T1 vertebra followed the head motion in flexion and extension), and 20% were classified in the negative group (the T1 vertebra moved in the opposite direction from the head motion). T1 height < 27 mm was a potential predictor of negative group.

Keywords

Kinematic magnetic resonance imaging T1 slope T1 sagittal motion Cervical sagittal balance T1 height 

References

  1. 1.
    Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS, Deviren V, Bess S, Hart RA, Lafage V, Shaffrey CI, Schwab F, Ames CP, ISSG (2012) The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 71:662–669. 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31826100c9 (discussion 669) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sakai K, Yoshii T, Hirai T, Arai Y, Torigoe I, Tomori M, Sato H, Okawa A (2016) Cervical sagittal imbalance is a predictor of kyphotic deformity after laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients without preoperative kyphotic alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:299–305. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, Schwab FJ, Le Huec JC, Massicotte EM, Patel AA, Traynelis VC, Kim HJ, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Lafage V (2013) Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:S149–S160. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weng C, Wang J, Tuchman A, Wang J, Fu C, Hsieh PC, Buser Z, Wang JC (2016) Influence of T1 slope on the cervical sagittal balance in degenerative cervical spine: an analysis using kinematic MRI. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:185–190. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knott PT, Mardjetko SM, Techy F (2010) The use of the T1 sagittal angle in predicting overall sagittal balance of the spine. Spine J 10:994–998. 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.08.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho JH, Ha JK, Kim DG, Song KY, Kim YT, Hwang CJ, Lee CS, Lee DH (2014) Does preoperative T1 slope affect radiological and functional outcomes after cervical laminoplasty? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E1575–E1581. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim TH, Lee SY, Kim YC, Park MS, Kim SW (2013) T1 slope as a predictor of kyphotic alignment change after laminoplasty in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E992–E997. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182972e1b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oe S, Yamato Y, Togawa D, Kurosu K, Mihara Y, Banno T, Yasuda T, Kobayashi S, Hasegawa T, Matsuyama Y (2016) Preoperative T1 slope more than 40 degrees as a risk factor of correction loss in patients with adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:E1168–E1176. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim B, Yoon do H, Ha Y, Yi S, Shin DA, Lee CK, Lee N, Kim KN (2016) Relationship between T1 slope and loss of lordosis after laminoplasty in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine J 16:219–225. 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.10.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park JH, Cho CB, Song JH, Kim SW, Ha Y, Oh JK (2013) T1 slope and cervical sagittal alignment on cervical CT radiographs of asymptomatic persons. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 53:356–359. 10.3340/jkns.2013.53.6.356 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singhatanadgige W, Kang DG, Luksanapruksa P, Peters C, Riew KD (2016) Correlation and reliability of cervical sagittal alignment parameters between lateral cervical radiograph and lateral whole-body EOS stereoradiograph. Global Spine J 6:548–554. 10.1055/s-0035-1569462 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jun HS, Chang IB, Song JH, Kim TH, Park MS, Kim SW, Oh JK (2014) Is it possible to evaluate the parameters of cervical sagittal alignment on cervical computed tomographic scans? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E630–E636. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suzuki A, Daubs MD, Inoue H, Hayashi T, Aghdasi B, Montgomery SR, Ruangchainikom M, Hu X, Lee CJ, Wang CJ, Wang BJ, Nakamura H (2013) Prevalence and motion characteristics of degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis in the symptomatic adult. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E1115–E1120. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829b1487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hayashi T, Daubs MD, Suzuki A, Scott TP, Phan KH, Ruangchainikom M, Takahashi S, Shiba K, Wang JC (2015) Motion characteristics and related factors of Modic changes in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 22:511–517. 10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14496 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Phan KH, Daubs MD, Kupperman AI, Scott TP, Wang JC (2015) Kinematic analysis of diseased and adjacent segments in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J 15:230–237. 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.08.453 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen J (1962) The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 65:145–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1873–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan Y, Aghdasi BG, Montgomery SR, Inoue H, Lu C, Wang JC (2012) Kinetic magnetic resonance imaging analysis of lumbar segmental mobility in patients without significant spondylosis. Eur Spine J 21:2673–2679. 10.1007/s00586-012-2387-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chiba K, Ogawa Y, Ishii K, Takaishi H, Nakamura M, Maruiwa H, Matsumoto M, Toyama Y (2006) Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy—average 14-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2998–3005. 10.1097/01.brs.0000250307.78987.6b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tamai K, Suzuki A, Terai H, Toyoda H, Hoshino M, Nakamura H (2016) Laminar closure after expansive open-door laminoplasty: fixation methods and cervical alignments impact on the laminar closure and surgical outcomes. Spine J 16:1062–1069. 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.04.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haberman SJ (1973) The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics 29:205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Janusz P, Tyrakowski M, Glowka P, Offoha R, Siemionow K (2015) Influence of cervical spine position on the radiographic parameters of the thoracic inlet alignment. Eur Spine J 24:2880–2884. 10.1007/s00586-015-4023-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oe S, Togawa D, Nakai K, Yamada T, Arima H, Banno T, Yasuda T, Kobayasi S, Yamato Y, Hasegawa T, Yoshida G, Matsuyama Y (2015) The influence of age and sex on cervical spinal alignment among volunteers aged over 50. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:1487–1494. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee SH, Son ES, Seo EM, Suk KS, Kim KT (2015) Factors determining cervical spine sagittal balance in asymptomatic adults: correlation with spinopelvic balance and thoracic inlet alignment. Spine J 15:705–712. 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.059 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koji Tamai
    • 1
    • 3
  • Zorica Buser
    • 1
  • Permsak Paholpak
    • 1
  • Kittipong Sessumpun
    • 1
  • Patrick C. Hsieh
    • 2
  • Hiroaki Nakamura
    • 3
  • Jeffrey C. Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedics, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka City UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations