Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Segmental vertebral motion in the assessment of neck range of motion in whiplash patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to obtain comparative data concerning the relative contribution of segmental cervical vertebral motion to the cervical range of motion (ROM) in whiplash and healthy subjects in an effort to evaluate the usefulness of X-ray analysis in future forensic and research efforts. Each subject’s neck ROM was measured with an optoelectronic system and also by X-ray measurements of the angular rotation in flexion and extension. The X-rays were examined to calculate the angular movement in the sagittal plane of each of the functional units C2–C3 to C6–C7. The chronic whiplash subjects showed reduced total neck range in all directions as compared to healthy subjects (p<0.001). There was a reduced total angular rotation from flexion to extension between these two groups (p<0.01), but no significant difference, however, between chronic whiplash subjects and controls in the percentage contribution of each of the functional units C2–C3 to C6–C7 to this rotation. This data will now allow a design of trials where healthy subjects are asked to simulate restricted neck ROM while undergoing optokinetic and X-ray evaluation of segmental vertebral motion. We will be able to determine if simulators produce a similar pattern to chronic whiplash and healthy, non-simulating subjects, and thus determine if, at least for forensic and research purposes, this technique is useful in validating reported restricted neck range.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dvir Z, Penso-Zabludowski E (2003) The effects of protocol and test situation on maximal vs. submaximal cervical motion: medicolegal implications. Int J Legal Med 117:350–355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, Zeiss E (1995) Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on whiplash-associated disorders. Spine 20 [Suppl 8]:1S–73S

  3. Kristjansson E, Leivseth G, Brinckmann P, Frobin W (2003) Increased sagittal plane segmental motion in the lower cervical spine in women with chronic whiplash-associated disorders, grades I–II. A case-control study using a new measurement protocol. Spine 28:2215–2221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dinmet J, Pasquet A, Krag MH, Panjabi MM (1982) Cervical spine motion in the sagittal plane: kinematic and geometric parameters. J Biomech 15:959–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shaffer WO, Spratt KF, Weinstein J, Lehmann TR, Goel V (1990) The consistency and accuracy of roentgenograms for measuring sagittal translation in the lumbar vertebral motion segment—an experimental model. Spine 15:741–750

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Panjabi MM, Chang D, Dvorak J (1992) An analysis of errors in kinematic parameters associated with in vivo functional radiographs. Spine 17:200–205

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dvorak J, Froelich D, Penning L, Baumgartner H, Panjabi MM (1988) Functional radiographic diagnosis of the cervical spine flexion/extension. Spine 13:748–755

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frobin W, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, Brinckmann P (2001) Sagittal plane segmental motion of the cervical spine. A new precision measurement protocol and normal motion data of healthy adults. Clin Biomech 17:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Capaccioli L, Montigiani L, Donati P, Puglisi AT, Giurovich E, Puglisi F (1998) Measurement reliability of dynamic x-rays of the cervical spine: an experimental model. Ital J Anat Embryol 103:13–25

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Castro WHM, Meyer SJ, Becke MER et al. (2001) No stress—no whiplash? Prevalence of “whiplash” symptoms following exposure to a placebo rear-end collision. Int J Legal Med 114:316–322

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kwan O, Friel J (2002) Whiplash sine whiplash. Int J Legal Med 116:249–250

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Siegmund GP, Brault JR, Wheeler JB (2002) Placebo whiplash data need cautious interpretation. Int J Legal Med 116:251

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Casto W (2002) Reply to Siegmund et al. Int J Legal Med 116:252

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bonelli A, Donati P, Maltoni G, Puglisi F, Norelli GA (2000) Neck motion evaluation after whiplash: a radiographic and kinematic protocol. Ital J Anat Embryol 105:51–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Antonaci F, Bulgheroni M, Ghirmai S, Lanfranchi S, Dalla Toffola E, Sandrini G, Nappi G (2002) 3D kinematic analysis and clinical evaluation of neck movements in patients with whiplash injury. Cephalalgia 22:533–542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We gratefully acknowledge the funding support of La Fondiaria Assicurazioni s.p.a., Florence, Italy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filadelfio Puglisi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Puglisi, F., Ridi, R., Cecchi, F. et al. Segmental vertebral motion in the assessment of neck range of motion in whiplash patients. Int J Legal Med 118, 235–239 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-004-0462-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-004-0462-3

Keywords

Navigation