Skip to main content

Impact of cervical sagittal balance and cervical spine alignment on craniocervical junction motion: an analysis using upright multi-positional MRI

European Spine Journal volume 30, pages 444–453 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of cervical sagittal alignment on craniocervical junction kinematic.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 359 patients (119 cervical lordosis, 38 cervical sagittal imbalances, 111 cervical straight, and 91 cervical kyphosis) who underwent cervical spine multi-positional magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI). The C2-7 angle, disc degeneration grading and cSVA were analyzed in neutral position. The C3-5 OCI, O-C2 angle, and OCD were analyzed in neutral, flexion, and extension position. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to detect difference among four groups. The post hoc analysis was performed by Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

The cervical sagittal imbalance, cervical straight, and cervical kyphosis groups had significantly more lordosis angle in C3 and C4 OCI and O-C2 angle than the cervical lordosis group (p < 0.0125). Head motion in relation to C2, C3, and C4 (O-C2 angle, C3-4 OCI) in the kyphosis group was significantly greater than in the cervical lordosis group (p < 0.0125). The cervical sagittal imbalance group showed significantly increased O-C2 angle than the cervical lordosis group (p = 0.008). Regression analysis showed that an increase in O-C2 angle by one unit had a relative risk of 4.3% and 3.5% for a patient to be in the cervical sagittal imbalance and cervical kyphosis groups, respectively.

Conclusions

Cervical sagittal alignment affected craniocervical junction motion with the head exhibiting greater extension and motion in the cervical sagittal imbalance and cervical kyphosis groups. Motion of the head in relation to C2 can be used to predict the cervical sagittal alignment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Panjabi M, Dvorak J, Duranceau J, Yamamoto I, Gerber M, Rauschning W, Bueff HU (1988) Three-dimensional movements of the upper cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:726–730

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wolfla CE (2006) Anatomical, biomechanical, and practical considerations in posterior occipitocervical instrumentation. Spine J Offi J N Am Spine Soc 6:225S–232S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lopez AJ, Scheer JK, Leibl KE, Smith ZA, Dlouhy BJ, Dahdaleh NS (2015) Anatomy and biomechanics of the craniovertebral junction. Neurosurg Focus 38:E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.FOCUS14807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hayashi T, Daubs MD, Suzuki A, Scott TP, Phan K, Aghdasi B, Ruangchainikom M, Hu X, Lee C, Takahashi S, Shiba K, Wang JC (2016) The compensatory relationship of upper and subaxial cervical motion in the presence of cervical spondylosis. Clin Spine Surg 29:E196–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182aab240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yoon SD, Lee CH, Lee J, Choi JY, Min WK (2017) Occipitocervical inclination: new radiographic parameter of neutral occipitocervical position. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5161-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fineman S, Borrelli FJ, Rubinstein BM, Epstein H, Jacobson HG (1963) The cervical spine: transformation of the normal lordotic pattern into a linear pattern in the neutral posture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 45:1179–1183

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B, Siskin LA (2001) Slight head extension: does it change the sagittal cervical curve? Eur Spine J 10:149–153

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderst WJ, Donaldson WF, Lee JY, Kang JD (2013) Cervical spine intervertebral kinematics with respect to the head are different during flexion and extension motions. J Biomech 46:1471–1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.03.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderst WJ, Donaldson WF 3rd, Lee JY, Kang JD (2015) Cervical motion segment contributions to head motion during flexion\extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 15:2538–2543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.08.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Miyazaki M, Hymanson HJ, Morishita Y, He W, Zhang H, Wu G, Kong MH, Tsumura H, Wang JC (2008) Kinematic analysis of the relationship between sagittal alignment and disc degeneration in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:E870–876. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181839733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Takeshima T, Omokawa S, Takaoka T, Araki M, Ueda Y, Takakura Y (2002) Sagittal alignment of cervical flexion and extension: lateral radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:E348–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yip CH, Chiu TT, Poon AT (2008) The relationship between head posture and severity and disability of patients with neck pain. Man Ther 13:148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2006.11.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Khayatzadeh S, Muriuki MG, Voronov LI, Carandang G, Nguyen NL, Ghanayem AJ, Schuit D, Patel AA, Smith ZA, Sears W (2015) Postural consequences of cervical sagittal imbalance: a Novel Laboratory Model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:783–792. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Weng C, Wang J, Tuchman A, 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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:S149–160. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sessumpun K, Paholpak P, Hindoyan KN, Tamai K, Sangkomkamhang T, Buser Z, Wang JC (2018) Characteristics of cervical spine motion in different types of cervical alignment: kinematic MRI study. Clin Spine Surg 31:E239–E244. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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:E1115–1120. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829b1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ruangchainikom M, Daubs MD, Suzuki A, Hayashi T, Weintraub G, Lee CJ, Inoue H, Tian H, Aghdasi B, Scott TP, Phan KH, Chotivichit A, Wang JC (2014) Effect of cervical kyphotic deformity type on the motion characteristics and dynamic spinal cord compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:932–938. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hansson EE, Beckman A, Hakansson A (2010) Effect of vision, proprioception, and the position of the vestibular organ on postural sway. Acta Otolaryngol 130:1358–1363. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2010.498024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cecchinato R, Langella F, Bassani R, Sansone V, Lamartina C, Berjano P (2014) Variations of cervical lordosis and head alignment after pedicle subtraction osteotomy surgery for sagittal imbalance. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):644–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3546-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. White AA 3rd, Panjabi MM (1978) The clinical biomechanics of the occipitoatlantoaxial complex. Orthop Clin North Am 9:867–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funds were received for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1450 Biggy Street, NRT-4513, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Permsak Paholpak, Andrew Vega, Blake Formanek, Koji Tamai, Jeffrey C. Wang & Zorica Buser

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

    Permsak Paholpak

Authors
  1. Permsak Paholpak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Vega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Blake Formanek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Koji Tamai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeffrey C. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zorica Buser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zorica Buser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are not conflicts of interest, and disclosures outside of submitted work were provided in the Conflict of Interest forms. Disclosures outside of submitted work: JCW- Royalties – Biomet, Seaspine, Amedica, DePuy Synthes; Investments/Options – Bone Biologics, Pearldiver, Electrocore, Surgitech; Board of Directors - North American Spine Society, AO Foundation (20,000 honorariums for board position, plus travel for board meetings), Cervical Spine Research Society; Editorial Boards - Spine, The Spine Journal, Clinical Spine Surgery, Global Spine Journal; Fellowship Funding (paid directly to institution): AO Foundation; ZB- consultancy: Cerapedics, The Scripps Research Institute, Xenco Medical (past), AO Spine (past); Research Support: SeaSpine (past, paid to the institution), Next Science (paid directly to institution), Motion Metrix (paid directly to institution); North American Spine Society: committee member; Lumbar Spine Society: Co-chair Research committee, AOSpine Knowledge Forum Degenerative: Associate member; AOSNA Research committee- committee member.

Ethics approval

Institutional approval by University of Southern California.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paholpak, P., Vega, A., Formanek, B. et al. Impact of cervical sagittal balance and cervical spine alignment on craniocervical junction motion: an analysis using upright multi-positional MRI. Eur Spine J 30, 444–453 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06559-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06559-5

Keywords

  • Cervical sagittal alignment
  • Multi-positional MRI
  • Craniocervical junction
  • Head motion