Journal of Trauma and Injury

The Korean Society of Traumatology (대한외상학회)
권호 표지

Kinematical Characteristics of the Translational and Pendular Movements of each Cervical Vertebra at the Flexion and Extension Motion

굴곡과 신전 수동운동 상태에서 개별경추의 진자운동 및 병진운동의 운동학적인 특징

  • Park, Sung Hyuk (Department of Emergency Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Choi, Han Sung (Department of Emergency Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Hong, Hoon Pyo (Department of Emergency Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Ko, Young Gwan (Department of Emergency Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
  • 박성혁 (경희대학교 의과대학 응급의학교실) ;
  • 최한성 (경희대학교 의과대학 응급의학교실) ;
  • 홍훈표 (경희대학교 의과대학 응급의학교실) ;
  • 고영관 (경희대학교 의과대학 응급의학교실)
  • Received : 2006.10.02
  • Accepted : 2006.10.25
  • Published : 2006.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the kinematical characteristics of the pendular and the translational movements of each cervical vertebra at flexion and extension for understanding the mechanism of injury to the cervical spine. Methods: Twenty volunteers, young men (24~37 years), with clinically and radiographically normal cervical spines were studied. We induced two directional passive movements and then took X-ray pictures. The range of pendular movement could be measured by measuring the variation of the distance between the center point of two contiguous cervical vertebrae, and the range of translational movement could be measured by measuring the variation of the shortest distance between the center point of a vertebra and an imaginary line connecting the center points of two lower contiguous cervical vertebrae. The measurements were done by using a picture archiving and communicating system (PACS). Results: The total length of all cervical vertebrae in the neutral position was, on average, 133.66 mm, but in both flexion and extension, the lengths were widened to 134.83 mm and 134.79 mm, respectively. The directions of both the pendular and the translational movements changed at the $2^{nd}$ cervical vertebra, and the ranges of both movements were significantly larger from the $5^{th}$ cervical vertebra to the $7^{th}$ cervical vertebra for flexion and combined flexion and extension motion (p<0.05). Conclusion: The kinematical characteristics for flexion and extension motions were variable at each level of cervical vertebrae. The $1^{st}$ and the $2^{nd}$ cervical vertebrae and from the $5^{th}$ to the $7^{th}$ cervical vertebrae were the main areas of cervical spinal injury. This shows, according to "Hook's law," that the tissues supporting this area could be weak, and that this area is sensitive to injury.

Keywords

References

  1. Northrup BE. Evaluation and early treatment of acute injuries to the spine and spinal cord. In: Clark CR ed. The cervical spine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lipponcott-Raven;1998:541-9
  2. Lee CK, Yeom JS, Chang BS. Fractures and dislocations of the cervical spine. In: Kim YM, Chung MS, Seong SC eds. Fracture. 2nd ed. Seoul: Koonja;2001:559-600
  3. Schmitt H, Gerner HJ. Paralysis from sport and diving accidents. Clin J Sport Med 2001;11:17-22 https://doi.org/10.1097/00042752-200101000-00004
  4. Molsa JJ, Tegner Y, Alaranta H, Myllynen P, Kujala UM. Spinal cord injuries in ice hockey in Finland and Sweden from 1980 to 1996. Int J Sports Med 1999;20:64-7 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-971095
  5. Allen BL, Fergusson RL, Lehmann TR and O'Bren RP. A mechanistic classification of closed, indirect fractrues and dislocations of the lower cervical spine. Spine 1982:7:1-27 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198200710-00001
  6. Chamman JR, Anderson PA. Cervical trauma. In: Frymoyer JW ed. The adult spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven;1997:1245-96
  7. Robertson A, Branfoot T, Barlow IF, Giannoudis PV. Spinal injury patterns resulting from car and motorcycle accidents. Spine 2002;27:2825-30 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200212150-00019
  8. Fukushima M, Kaneoka K, Ono K, Sakane M, Ujihashi S, Ochiai N. Neck injury mechanisms during direct face impact. Spine 2006;31:903-8 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000209257.47140.fc
  9. Kim YE. Biomechanical analysis of the spine. In: Suk SI ed. Spinal surgery. 2nd ed. Seoul: Newest Medical Publishing Company;2004:39-54
  10. Askins V, Eismont FJ. Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. Spine 1997; 22:1193-8 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199706010-00004
  11. Alberts LR, Mahoney CR, and Neff JR. Comparison of the Nebraska collar, a new prototype cervical immobilization collar, with three standard models. J Orthopaedic Trauma 1998;12:425-30 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199808000-00011
  12. Roberts JR, Hedges JR. Clinical procedures in emergency medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1998:772-5
  13. Ehara S, Shimamura T. Cervical spine injury in the elderly: Imaging features. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30:1-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002560000300
  14. Panjabi MM. Three-dimensional mathematical model of the human spine structure. J Biomech 1973;6:761-7
  15. Andersson GBJ, Schultz AB. Effects of fluid injection on mechanical properties of intervertebral discs. J Biomech 1982;12:453-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(79)90030-7
  16. Ishii T, Mukai Y, Hosono N, Sakaura H, Fujii R, Nakajima Y, et al. Kinematics of the cervical spine in lateral bending. Spine 2006;31:155-60 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000195173.47334.1f
  17. Fredrickson BE, Yuan HA. Nonoperative treatment of the spine: external immobilization. In: Browner BD, Jupiter JB, Levine AM, Trafton PG eds. Skeletal trauma. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1998:807-35
  18. Mimura M, Moriya H, Watanabe T, Takahashi K, Yamagata M, Tamaki Tl. Three-dimensional motion analysis of the cervical spine with special reference to the axial rotation. Spine 1989;14:1135-9 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198911000-00001
  19. Bogduk N, Mercer S. Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I: normal Kinematics. Clin Biomech 2000;15: 633-48 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00034-6
  20. Choi HS, Park HK, Hong HP, Kim MC, Ko YG. A comparison of efficacy of two cervical orthoses in Koreans. Journal of the Korean society of emergency medicine. 2004;15:213-21
  21. Choi HS, Ko YG, Kim MC, Hong HP. The sliding phenomenon in men with cervical orthoses in the extensive motion. Journal of the Korean Society of Traumatology 2004;17:163-73
  22. Marar BC, Orth MC. Hyperextension injuries of the cervical spine. The pathogenesis of damage to the spinal cord. J Bone Joint Surg 1974;56:1655-62 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197456080-00016
  23. Roaf R. A study of the mechanics of spinal injuries. J Bone Joint Surg 1960;42:810-23
  24. Ordway NR, Seymour RJ, Donelson RG, Hojnowski LS, Edwards WT. Cervical flexion, extension, protrusion, and retraction: A radiological segmental analysis. Spine 1999;24:240-7 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199902010-00008
  25. Penning L. Normal movements of the cervical spine. Am J Roentgenol 1978;130:317-26 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.130.2.317
  26. DalCanto RA, Lieberman I, Inceoglu S, Kayanja M, Ferrara L. Biomechanical comparison of transarticular facet screws to lateral mass plates in two-level instrumentations of the cervical spine. Spine 2005;30:897-902 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000158937.64577.25
  27. Siegmund GP, Myers BS, Davis MB, Bohnet HF, Winkelstein BA. Mechanical evidence of cervical facet capsule injury during whiplash: a cadaveric study using combined shear, compression and extension loading. Spine 2001;26:2063-4 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200110010-00002
  28. Yang KH, King AI. Mechanism of facet load transmission as a hypothesis for low back pain. Spine 1984;9:557-65 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198409000-00005
  29. Reuber M, Schultz A, Dennis F, Spencer D. Bulging of lumbar intervertebral discs. J Biomech Eng 1982;104:187-92 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3138347