Dynamic in vivo 3D atlantoaxial spine kinematics during upright rotation

Anderst, William; Rynearson, Bryan; West, Tyler; Donaldson, William F.; Lee, Joon

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.06.007

Cited by 23 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…36,37 Studies by Anderst et al and Penning have shown that approximately 50% of total cervical spine rotation occurs at C1/2. 5,6 In the present study, range recorded during the FRT corresponds to an average of 59.5% of the total rotation of the cervical spine, resulting in a ratio of 60:40 reflecting upper to lower cervical spine mobility. This is of clinical importance, as it allows the age-independent differentiation of upper versus lower cervical spine movement restriction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Upper cervical range of rotation during the flexion-rotation test is age dependent: an observational study

Schäfer¹,

Schöttker-Königer

Hall

et al. 2020

Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The flexion-rotation test (FRT) is widely used to detect movement dysfunction in the spinal segment C1/C2, especially in patients with cervicogenic headache. The current published literature indicates that range recorded during the FRT is not age dependent. This is questionable, considering the well documented relationship between aging and degeneration in the cervical spine and loss of cervical movement in older people. The present study therefore aims to examine the influence of age on FRT mobility, and to provide normative values for different age groups. An additional aim is to examine the influence of age on the ratio between lower and upper cervical rotation mobility. Methods: For this cross-sectional, observational study, healthy subjects aged from 18 to 90 years were recruited. The upper cervical range of rotation during the FRT was measured using a digital goniometer. Personal data including age, weight, height, and lifestyle factors were also assessed. Results: A total of 230 (124 male) healthy, asymptomatic subjects, aged between 18 and 87 years were included. Regression analysis showed that 27.91% ( p < 0.0001) of the variance in FRT mobility can be explained by age alone, while 41.28% ( p < 0.0001) of the variance in FRT mobility can be explained by age and total cervical range of motion (ROM). Normative values for different age decades were calculated using regression analysis. No significant influence of age on the ratio between ROM of lower and upper cervical rotation was found. There was no relevant impact of personal (gender, height, and weight) and lifestyle (smartphone and PC use) factors on ROM during the FRT. Conclusion: Upper cervical rotation mobility determined by the FRT correlates strongly with age; hence, the results of the FRT have to be interpreted taking into account the individual age of the tested subject. The ratio between lower and upper cervical rotation mobility is maintained in all age groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Upper cervical range of rotation during the flexion-rotation test is age dependent: an observational study

Schäfer¹,

Schöttker-Königer

Hall

et al. 2020

Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within the sagittal planes of C1 and C2 vertebrae, their superior directions were parallel to the C1 articular surface of the anterior arch and to the pivot axis of the C2 odontoid process, respectively. Compared to the CS definitions of the upper cervical segments adopted in previous studies (Anderst et al, 2017;Ishii et al, 2006Ishii et al, , 2004Kang et al, 2019), our definition resulted in different locations of the coordinate origins, but the orientations of the coordinate axes were consistent. For the subaxial segments (Fig.…”

Section: Processing Of Image Datamentioning

confidence: 84%

“…In vivo neck / cervical segment motion of asymptomatic subjects has been extensively investigated using various techniques, such as skin marker-based motion analysis (Henmi et al, 2006;Wu et al, 2007), computed tomography (CT)-/ magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based static imaging (Ishii et al, 2006(Ishii et al, , 2004Kang et al, 2019;Zhai et al, 2019), as well as single-/bi-planar X-ray/fluoroscopic imaging (Anderst et al, 2017(Anderst et al, , 2015(Anderst et al, , 2013Iai et al, 1993;Lin et al, 2014;Yu et al, 2019). Most previously reported studies focused on the intervertebral kinematics of the subaxial cervical spine, and showed that each segment has specific motion characteristics (Lin et al, 2014;Yu et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most previously reported studies focused on the intervertebral kinematics of the subaxial cervical spine, and showed that each segment has specific motion characteristics (Lin et al, 2014;Yu et al, 2019). However, only a few in vivo studies involved the evaluation of the intervertebral ROMs at upper cervical segments (C0-1 and C1-2) using conventional CT/MRI (Ishii et al, 2006(Ishii et al, , 2004Kang et al, 2019;Zhai et al, 2019) and using biplanar X-ray/fluoroscopic imaging (Anderst et al, 2017(Anderst et al, , 2015Iai et al, 1993) in one or multiple neck motions. Therefore, for the normal cervical spine, it is generally known that an upper cervical segment (C0-1/C1-2) allows a different ROM from that of a lower cervical segment (C2-T1) in certain neck motions (Anderst et al, 2015;Iai et al, 1993;Kang et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intervertebral range of motion characteristics of normal cervical spinal segments (C0-T1) during in vivo neck motions

Zhou

Wang

et al. 2020

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The in vivo intervertebral range of motion (ROM) is an important predictor for spinal disorders.While the subaxial cervical spine has been extensively studied, the motion characteristics of the occipito-atlantal (C0-1) and atlanto-axial (C1-2) cervical segments were less reported due to technical difficulties in accurate imaging of these two segments. In this study, we investigated the intervertebral ROMs of the entire cervical spine (C0-T1) during in vivo functional neck motions of asymptomatic human subjects, including maximal flexion-extension, left-right lateral bending, and left-right axial torsion, using previously validated dual fluoroscopic imaging and model registration techniques. During all neck motions, C0-1, similar to C7-T1, was substantially less mobile than other segments and always contributed less than 10% of the cervical rotations. During the axial rotation of the neck, C1-2 contributed 73.2±17.3% of the cervical rotation, but each of other segments contributed less than 10% of the cervical rotation. During both lateral bending and axial torsion neck motions, regardless of primary or coupled motions, the axial torsion ROM of C1-2 was significantly greater than its lateral bending ROM (p<0.001), whereas the opposite *

show abstract

“…The limitation of upper cervical axial rotation of C0–C1 in our study is similar to the in vitro studies of Panjabi et al (1988) 34 (14.8%) and Panjabi et al (2001) 35 (14.86%) but higher than other in vivo studies with active movements (2.4–8.9%) 9 , 10 , 36 – 39 . In general, it seems to be a lack of data regarding the contribution of C0–C1 to upper cervical axial rotation in the literature, and in fact, some authors even disregard it 7 , 9 , 11 – 13 , 40 . Boszczyk et al (2012) concluded that only considering C1–C2 arthrokinematics do not explain the tolerance of the alar ligaments at the maximum of 40° of UCS rotation 12 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study

Hidalgo-García

Lorente

López-de-Celis

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares upper cervical spine range of motion (ROM) in the three cardinal planes before and after occiput-atlas (C0–C1) stabilization. After the dissection of the superficial structures to the alar ligament and the fixation of C2, ten cryopreserved upper cervical columns were manually mobilized in the three cardinal planes of movement without and with a screw stabilization of C0–C1. Upper cervical ROM and mobilization force were measured using the Vicon motion capture system and a load cell respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 19.8° ± 5.2° in flexion and 14.3° ± 7.7° in extension. With stabilization, the ROM was 11.5° ± 4.3° and 6.6° ± 3.5°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 4.7° ± 2.3° in right lateral flexion and 5.6° ± 3.2° in left lateral flexion. With stabilization, the ROM was 2.3° ± 1.4° and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively. The 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° and 23.7° ± 8.5° respectively. Stabilization of C0–C1 reduced the upper cervical ROM by 46.9% in the sagittal plane, 55.3% in the frontal plane, and 15.6% in the transverse plane. Also, the resistance to movement during upper cervical mobilization increased following C0–C1 stabilization.

show abstract

Dynamic in vivo 3D atlantoaxial spine kinematics during upright rotation

Cited by 23 publications

References 37 publications

Upper cervical range of rotation during the flexion-rotation test is age dependent: an observational study

Upper cervical range of rotation during the flexion-rotation test is age dependent: an observational study

Intervertebral range of motion characteristics of normal cervical spinal segments (C0-T1) during in vivo neck motions

Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About