Intradiscal Pressure Responses to Cervical Spine Posterior-Anterior Mobilization to Promote Disc Nutrition

2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (10) ◽  
pp. e36
Author(s):  
Carla James ◽  
Jean-Michel Brismée ◽  
Marc-Olivier St-Pierre ◽  
Martin Descarreaux ◽  
Emile Marineau ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Ames ◽  
Justin S. Smith ◽  
Justin K. Scheer ◽  
Christopher I. Shaffrey ◽  
Virginie Lafage ◽  
...  

Object Cervical spine osteotomies are powerful techniques to correct rigid cervical spine deformity. Many variations exist, however, and there is no current standardized system with which to describe and classify cervical osteotomies. This complicates the ability to compare outcomes across procedures and studies. The authors' objective was to establish a universal nomenclature for cervical spine osteotomies to provide a common language among spine surgeons. Methods A proposed nomenclature with 7 anatomical grades of increasing extent of bone/soft tissue resection and destabilization was designed. The highest grade of resection is termed the major osteotomy, and an approach modifier is used to denote the surgical approach(es), including anterior (A), posterior (P), anterior-posterior (AP), posterior-anterior (PA), anterior-posterior-anterior (APA), and posterior-anterior-posterior (PAP). For cases in which multiple grades of osteotomies were performed, the highest grade is termed the major osteotomy, and lower-grade osteotomies are termed minor osteotomies. The nomenclature was evaluated by 11 reviewers through 25 different radiographic clinical cases. The review was performed twice, separated by a minimum 1-week interval. Reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa coefficients. Results The average intrarater reliability was classified as “almost perfect agreement” for the major osteotomy (0.89 [range 0.60–1.00]) and approach modifier (0.99 [0.95–1.00]); it was classified as “moderate agreement” for the minor osteotomy (0.73 [range 0.41–1.00]). The average interrater reliability for the 2 readings was the following: major osteotomy, 0.87 (“almost perfect agreement”); approach modifier, 0.99 (“almost perfect agreement”); and minor osteotomy, 0.55 (“moderate agreement”). Analysis of only major osteotomy plus approach modifier yielded a classification that was “almost perfect” with an average intrarater reliability of 0.90 (0.63–1.00) and an interrater reliability of 0.88 and 0.86 for the two reviews. Conclusions The proposed cervical spine osteotomy nomenclature provides the surgeon with a simple, standard description of the various cervical osteotomies. The reliability analysis demonstrated that this system is consistent and directly applicable. Future work will evaluate the relationship between this system and health-related quality of life metrics.


2004 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Conradie ◽  
E. Smit ◽  
M. Louw ◽  
M. Prinsloo ◽  
L. Loubser ◽  
...  

Background and purpose: Physiotherapists frequently use central posterior-anterior (PA) joint mobilization techniques for assessing and managing spinal disorders. Manual examination findings provide the basis for the selection of treatment techniques. From the literature it is evident that the level of reliability varies when physiotherapists perform different mobilization techniques. Repeatability of mobilization techniques is important for better physiotherapy management. The aim of the study was to determine whether experienced physiotherapists apply equal magnitude of force during a grade I central PA mobilisation technique on the cervical spine. Another aim was to determine the variation in the magnitude of forceapplied by each individual physiotherapist. Subjects: Sample of convenience, consisting of sixteen (n=16) selected qualified physiotherapists with experience inOrthopaedic Manual Therapy.Methods: A grade I central PA was performed on the Flexiforce TM sensors positioned on C6 of the same asymptomatic model to measure the applied magnitude of force. Two separate measurements, each lasting 30-seconds, were obtained.Results: The average maximum peak force applied by the majority of physiotherapists (87.5%) was between 10.95gand 72g. The difference in the forces applied for the two measurements ranged between 0.64g and 24.4g. The BlandAltman scatterplot determined the mean of the difference between measurement one and two, calculated for the group, was zero. When comparing the two measurements, little variation was noted in the forces applied, as well as the coefficient of variation for each physiotherapist.Conclusion and Discussion: Current results demonstrated good intra-therapist and moderate to good inter-therapist repeatability. Further research is required to generalize results.


Neurosurgery ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 385-385
Author(s):  
Edward C. Benzel

Spine ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 27 (22) ◽  
pp. 2431-2434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason C. Eck ◽  
S. Craig Humphreys ◽  
Tae-Hong Lim ◽  
Soon Tack Jeong ◽  
Jesse G. Kim ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 1041-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Kandziora ◽  
Andreas Pingel

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 336-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong-Hyuk Park ◽  
Prem Ramakrishnan ◽  
Tai-Hyoung Cho ◽  
Eric Lorenz ◽  
Jason C. Eck ◽  
...  

Object Symptomatic multisegment disease is most common at the C5–6 and C6–7 levels, and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is performed most often at these levels. Therefore, it may be clinically important to know whether a C5–7 fusion affects the superior C4–5 segment. A biomechanical study was carried out using cadaveric cervical spine specimens to determine the effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on intradiscal pressure and segmental motion at the superior adjacent vertebral level. Methods Five cadaveric cervical spine specimens were used in this study. The specimens were stabilized at T-1 and loaded at C-3 to 15° flexion, 10° extension, and 10° lateral bending before and after simulated two-level ACDF with plate placement at C5–7. Intradiscal pressure was recorded at the C4–5 level, and segmental motion was recorded from C-4 through C-7. Differences in mean intradiscal pressures were calculated and analyzed using a paired Student t-test. When the maximum calibrated intradiscal pressures were exceeded (“overshot”) during measurements, data from the specimens involved were analyzed using the motion data with a Student t-test. Values for pressure and motion obtained before and after simulated ACDF were compared. Results During flexion, the mean intradiscal pressure changes (± standard deviations) in the pre- and post-ACDF measurements were 1275 (± 225) mm Hg and 2475 (± 75) mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.05). When the results of pre-ACDF testing were compared with post-ACDF results, no significant difference was found in the mean changes in the intradiscal pressure during extension and lateral bending. The maximum calibrated intradiscal pressures were exceeded during the post-ACDF testing in four specimens in extension, three in flexion, and two in lateral bending. Comparison of pre- and post-ACDF data for all five specimens revealed significant differences in motion and intradiscal pressure (p < 0.05) during flexion, significant differences in motion (p < 0.05) but not in intradiscal pressure during extension, and significant differences in intradiscal pressure changes (p < 0.05) but not in motion during lateral bending. Conclusions Simulated C5–7 ACDF caused a significant increase in intradiscal pressure and segmental motion in the superior adjacent C4–5 level during physiological motion. The increased pressure and hypermobility might accelerate normal degenerative changes in the vertebral levels adjacent to the anterior cervical fusion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document