2004
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000127186.81814.4a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spinal Canal Narrowing During Simulated Whiplash

Abstract: Spinal cord injury during whiplash is unlikely in patients with average normal canal diameters. Cord compression following whiplash due to physiologic extension loading is not likely. Previous clinical studies have found that whiplash patients with narrow canals may be at risk of injury, and our results do not disprove it.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
25
1
3

Year Published

2005
2005
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
2
25
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Continued experimental research with greater sample sizes would be needed to conclusively determine whether or not significant differences exist in cervical neural space kinematics between WHIPS, AHR, and NHR. Peak cervical canal and foramen narrowing of the present study with NHR (Table 1) are contrasted by previously reported data from simulated rear crashes of a human head-neck model [14,15]. Present peak foraminal width narrowing of 1.9 mm at C4/5 compares favorably with 1.7 mm, previously reported at C5/6.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Continued experimental research with greater sample sizes would be needed to conclusively determine whether or not significant differences exist in cervical neural space kinematics between WHIPS, AHR, and NHR. Peak cervical canal and foramen narrowing of the present study with NHR (Table 1) are contrasted by previously reported data from simulated rear crashes of a human head-neck model [14,15]. Present peak foraminal width narrowing of 1.9 mm at C4/5 compares favorably with 1.7 mm, previously reported at C5/6.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 57%
“…Using custom transducers to determine spinal canal and foraminal area narrowing, the greatest foraminal area reductions occurred at C5/6 and C6/7, but were of insufficient magnitude to cause injury [13]. Another study found that spinal cord injury during rear impact was unlikely in subjects with normal cervical canal diameters; however, those with severe cervical spinal canal stenosis may be at risk [14]. Nonphysiologic foraminal width narrowing was observed at the lower cervical spine, which indicated potential ganglia compression injury [15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite this, fracture-dislocation is relatively understudied injury mechanism in experimental SCI research. The geometric variable most relevant to AP cervical dislocation is CPD, and changes in this variable have been assessed during simulated frontal and rear impacts (Ito et al, 2004;Ivancic et al, 2006). Using 3-month old Sprague-Dawley rats, Choo et al (2009) classified a 2.6-mm dislocation as moderate-to-severe with a mortality rate of 10%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, despite our best efforts, we were unable to remove all of the vertebral column extension in our specimens. The importance of this issue is highlighted by findings that spine flexion/extension induced by dynamic front and rear impacts can result in a narrowing of CPD in the cervical spine (Ito et al, 2004;Ivancic et al, 2006). However, we feel this will have a limited influence on our findings as we used a standard mounting technique across all specimens, and pilot results from a single specimen (see ''Tissue specimens'' section) indicated that vertebral column extension during our static fixation had minimal influence on our microCT geometry measures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But the pathogenesis of whiplash complaints is still poorly understood. Injury to longitudinal ligaments [5][6][7], facet joints [7,8], discs [7], spinal cord [9], or muscles [10,11] has been studied as possible sources of chronic pain. However, no detectable findings are significantly different from asymptomatic subjects, and there is no known association between structure damage and symptoms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%