Dynamic functional nucleus is a potential biomarker for structural degeneration in cervical spine discs

LeVasseur, Clarissa M.; Wawrose, Richard A.; Pitcairn, Samuel; Donaldson, William F.; Lee, Joon Y.; Anderst, William

doi:10.1002/jor.24252

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25 In the lumbar spine, there is an increase in axial rotation and lateral bending range of motion (ROM) with an increased grade of degeneration. 7,26 In the cervical spine, degenerative discs have a smaller cross-sectional area and a more posterior instantaneous axis of rotation than their healthy counterparts, 27 which affects both the kinematics and mechanics of the motion segment.…”

Section: Sample Selection: Extent Of Degenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have developed over the past 50 years. During that time, there have been several paradigm shifts with respect to techniques. These techniques evolved by incorporating state-of-the-art engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure-function relationships, and the scientific method. Multiple parametric studies have focused on the effects that the experimental technique has on outcomes. As a result, testing methodologies have evolved, but there are no standard testing protocols, which makes the comparison of findings between experiments difficult and conclusions about in vivo performance challenging. In 2019, the international spine research community was surveyed to determine the consensus on spine biomechanical testing and if the consensus opinion was consistent with the scientific evidence. More than 80 responses to the survey were received. The findings of this survey confirmed that while some methods have been commonly adopted, not all are consistent with the scientific evidence. This review summarizes the scientific literature, the current consensus, and the authors' recommendations on best practices based on the compendium of available evidence.

show abstract

Section: Sample Selection: Extent Of Degenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Kinematics of the Cervical Spine Under Healthy and Degenerative Conditions: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of spinal kinematics is essential for the diagnosis and management of spinal diseases. Distinguishing between physiological and pathological motion patterns can help diagnose these diseases, plan surgical interventions and improve relevant tools and software. During the last decades, numerous studies based on diverse methodologies attempted to elucidate spinal mobility in different planes of motion. The authors aimed to summarize and compare the evidence about cervical spine kinematics under healthy and degenerative conditions. This includes an illustrated description of the spectrum of physiological cervical spine kinematics, followed by a comparable presentation of kinematics of the degenerative cervical spine. Data was obtained through a systematic MEDLINE search including studies on angular/translational segmental motion contribution, range of motion, coupling and center of rotation. As far as the degenerative conditions are concerned, kinematic data regarding disc degeneration and spondylolisthesis were available. Although the majority of the studies identified repeating motion patterns for most motion planes, discrepancies associated with limited sample sizes and different imaging techniques and/or spine configurations, were noted. Among healthy/asymptomatic individuals, flexion extension (FE) and lateral bending (LB) are mainly facilitated by the subaxial cervical spine. C4–C5 and C5–C6 were the major FE contributors in the reported studies, exceeding the motion contribution of sub-adjacent segments. Axial rotation (AR) greatly depends on C1–C2. FE range of motion (ROM) is distributed between the atlantoaxial and subaxial segments, while AR ROM stems mainly from the former and LB ROM from the latter. In coupled motion rotation is quantitatively predominant over translation. Motion migrates caudally from C1–C2 and the center of rotation (COR) translocates anteriorly and superiorly for each successive subaxial segment. In degenerative settings, concurrent or subsequent lesions render the association between diseases and mobility alterations challenging. The affected segments seem to maintain translational and angular motion in early and moderate degeneration. However, the progression of degeneration restrains mobility, which seems to be maintained or compensated by adjacent non-affected segments. While the kinematics of the healthy cervical spine have been addressed by multiple studies, the entire nosological and kinematic spectrum of cervical spine degeneration is partially addressed. Large—scale in vivo studies can complement the existing evidence, cover the gaps and pave the way to technological and clinical breakthroughs.

show abstract

In vivo intervertebral disc deformation: intratissue strain patterns within adjacent discs during flexion–extension

Wilson

Bowen

Kim

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biomechanical function of the intervertebral disc (IVD) is a critical indicator of tissue health and pathology. The mechanical responses (displacements, strain) of the IVD to physiologic movement can be spatially complex and depend on tissue architecture, consisting of distinct compositional regions and integrity; however, IVD biomechanics are predominately uncharacterized in vivo. Here, we measured voxel-level displacement and strain patterns in adjacent IVDs in vivo by coupling magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with cyclic motion of the cervical spine. Across adjacent disc segments, cervical flexion–extension of 10° resulted in first principal and maximum shear strains approaching 10%. Intratissue spatial analysis of the cervical IVDs, not possible with conventional techniques, revealed elevated maximum shear strains located in the posterior disc (nucleus pulposus) regions. IVD structure, based on relaxometric patterns of T2 and T1ρ images, did not correlate spatially with functional metrics of strain. Our approach enables a comprehensive IVD biomechanical analysis of voxel-level, intratissue strain patterns in adjacent discs in vivo, which are largely independent of MRI relaxometry. The spatial mapping of IVD biomechanics in vivo provides a functional assessment of adjacent IVDs in subjects, and provides foundational biomarkers for elastography, differentiation of disease state, and evaluation of treatment efficacy.

show abstract

Dynamic functional nucleus is a potential biomarker for structural degeneration in cervical spine discs

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence

Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence

Kinematics of the Cervical Spine Under Healthy and Degenerative Conditions: A Systematic Review

In vivo intervertebral disc deformation: intratissue strain patterns within adjacent discs during flexion–extension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About