Author:
Hidalgo-García César,Lorente Ana I.,López-de-Celis Carlos,Lucha-López María Orosia,Rodríguez-Sanz Jacobo,Maza-Frechín Mario,Tricás-Moreno José Miguel,Krauss John,Pérez-Bellmunt Albert
Abstract
AbstractThe purpose of this study is to compare axial rotation range of motion for the upper cervical spine during three movements: axial rotation, rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending and rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending before and after occiput-atlas (C0–C1) stabilization. Ten cryopreserved C0–C2 specimens (mean age 74 years, range 63–85 years) were manually mobilized in 1. axial rotation, 2. rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending and 3. rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending without and with a screw stabilization of C0–C1. Upper cervical range of motion and the force used to generate the motion were measured using an optical motion system and a load cell respectively. The range of motion (ROM) without C0–C1 stabilization was 9.8° ± 3.9° in right rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending and 15.5° ± 5.9° in left rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending. With stabilization, the ROM was 6.7° ± 4.3° and 13.6° ± 5.3°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 35.1° ± 6.0° in right rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending and 29.0° ± 6.5° in left rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending. With stabilization, the ROM was 25.7° ± 6.4° (p = 0.007) and 25.3° ± 7.1°, respectively. Neither rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending (left or right) or left rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending reached statistical significance. ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 33.9° ± 6.7° in right rotation and 28.0° ± 6.9° in left rotation. With stabilization, the ROM was 28.5° ± 7.0° (p = 0.005) and 23.7° ± 8.5° (p = 0.013) respectively. The stabilization of C0–C1 reduced the upper cervical axial rotation in right rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending and right and left axial rotations; however, this reduction was not present in left rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending or both combinations of rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference33 articles.
1. Morishita, Y. et al. The kinematic relationships of the upper cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34, 2642–2645 (2009).
2. Kang, J., Chen, G., Zhai, X. & He, X. In vivo three-dimensional kinematics of the cervical spine during maximal active head rotation. PLoS ONE 14, 1–16 (2019).
3. Lummel, N. et al. Value of ‘functional’ magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of ligamentous affection at the craniovertebral junction. Eur. J. Radiol. 81, 3435–3440 (2012).
4. Osmotherly, P. G., Rivett, D. A. & Mercer, S. R. Revisiting the clinical anatomy of the alar ligaments. Eur. Spine J. 22, 60–64 (2013).
5. Ishii, T. et al. Kinematics of the upper cervical spine in rotation: in vivo three-dimensional analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29, E139–E144 (2004).