Skip to main content
Log in

Cervical spinal canal stenosis: the differences between stenosis at the lower cervical and multiple segment levels

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edwards WC, LaRocca H (1983) The developmental segmental sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylosis. Spine 8:20–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gore DR (2001) Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine 26:2463–2466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hayashi H, Okada K, Hamada M, Tada K, Ueno R (1987) Etiologic factors of myelopathy: a radiographic evaluation of the aging changes in the cervical spine. Clin Orthop 214:200–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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] 78:1308–1314

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bailey RW (1974) The cervical spine. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boijsen E (1954) The cervical spinal canal in intraspinal expansive process. Acta Radiol 42:101–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen Y, Chen D, Wang X, Lu X, Guo Y, He Z, Tian H (2009) Anterior corpectomy and fusion for severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Int Orthop 33:477–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. DePalma A, Rothman R (1970) The intervertebral disc. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA, pp 35–46

    Google 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] 45:1171–1178

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Heller JG (2002) Surgical treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. Orthopaedic Knowledge Update, Spine 2. AAOS, 32, pp 299-309

  11. Schmitt-Sody M, Kirchhoff C, Buhmann S, Metz P, Birkenmaier C, Troullier H et al (2008) Timing of cervical spine stabilization and outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Int Orthop 32:511–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Herzog RJ, Weins JJ, Dillingham MF, Sontag MJ (1991) Normal cervical spine morphometry and cervical spine stenosis in asymptomatic professional football players. Spine 16:178–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Okada Y, Ikata T, Yamada H, Sakamoto R, Katoh S (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging study on the results of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 18:2024–2029

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Payne E, Spillane J (1957) The cervical spine and anatomico-pathological study of 70 specimens with particular reference to the problem of cervical spondylosis. Brain 80:571–596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Morishita Y, Hida S, Miyazaki M, Hong SW, Zou J, Wei F et al (2008) The effect of the degenerative changes in the functional spinal unit on the kinematics of the cervical spine. Spine 33:E178–E182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Miyazaki M, Hong SW, Yoon SH, Zou J, Tow B, Alanay A et al (2008) Kinematic analysis of the relationship between the grade of disc degeneration and motion unit of the cervical spine. Spine 33:187–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mihara H, Ohnari K, Hachiya M, Kondo S, Yamada K (2000) Cervical myelopathy caused by C3-4 spondylosis in elderly patients. Spine 25:796–800

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuichiro Morishita.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morishita, Y., Naito, M. & Wang, J.C. Cervical spinal canal stenosis: the differences between stenosis at the lower cervical and multiple segment levels. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 1517–1522 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1169-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1169-3

Keywords

Navigation