Different C5/6 intervertebral distracting height on the adjacent intervertebral disc pressure analysis
Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy ›› 2015, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (6) : 696-699.
Different C5/6 intervertebral distracting height on the adjacent intervertebral disc pressure analysis
Objective To study the impact of C5/6 intervertebral distraction height of adjacent disc pressure, so as to select the appropriate height of intervertebral distraction and provide the basis for clinical work. Methods Six fresh adult corpses were selected and the cervical spines were prepared and mounted to BOSE dynamic/static load testing machine. Neutral position, flexion and extension, lateral bending, multi-dimensional movement of rotation, were tested under different loads. neck movement of C5/6 before intervertebral distraction, C5/6 intervertebral distraction reference height of 100%, 120%, 140%, 160% and C4/5、C6/7 disc pressure changes. The measured pressure values were subjected for multiple comparative statistical analysis. Results Installation of all distraction position was satisfactory. Statistical analysis showed that: the average height of C5/6 in the six specimens was 6.8 mm; under the condition of different intervertebral distraction, the disc pressure was minimal with 30° cervical extension(P<0.05); under the condition of 120% of the reference height, C4/5 and C6/7 disc pressure values were larger when cervical spine was extended for 30°, laterally bended for 30°than the pressure values measured when the cervical spine was at any other reference height (P<0.05); when the cervical spine was in neutral position measured pressure values of C6/7 and C4/5 disc pressure was less than those of 100%, 140%, 160% reference height；When the cervical spine was in both the left and right lateral bending, the C4/5, C6/7 disc pressure value at 120% of the average height was less than 140% of the average height (P<0.05); while the former was not greater than the intervertebral disc distraction measured pressure value compared with the other three were between two highly significant difference (P<0.05); left rotation: each state was no significant difference (P>0.05); ligament of facet joint capsule was slightly teared in 1 specimens,when specimens at 160% of the benchmark distraction and the height of the line 30° flexion position. Conclusion C5/6 cervical interbody disc when the removal of the line, select the reference level of 120% of intervertebral distraction as the height of the adjacent intervertebral disc pressure changes less affected intervertebral distraction for proper height.
Cervical / Disc pressure / Distraction height / Adjacent segment
[1] Panjabi MM．Hybrid multidirectional test method to evaluate spinal adjacent-level effects[J]．Clin Biomech(Bristol，Avon)，2007，22(3)：257-265．
[2] Eck JC，Humphreys SC，Lim TH，et a1．Biomechanical study on the effecl of cervical spine fusion on adjacent．1evel intradiscal pressure and segmental motion[J]．Spine(Phila Pa 1976)，2012，27(22)：2431-2434．
[3] Panjabi M，Malcolmson G，Teng E，et a1．Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions[J]．Spine(Phila Pa1976)，2007，32(9)：959-966．
[4] Ishihara H, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Adjiacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion[J].Spine J, 2004, 4(6):624-628.
[5] Brower RS，Herkowitz HN，Kurz L. Effect of distraction on union rates of Smith-Robinson type anterior discectomy and fusion[C]. Presented at the twentieth annual meeting of the Cervical Spine Research Society.Palm Desert，California，1992.
[6] Bayley JC,Yon JU, Zou D, et a1. The role of distraction in improving the space for the cord and never roots in cervical spondylosis[C]．Presented at the North American Spine Society conference,Keystone,Clolrado, August,1991．
[7] White AA, Panjabi MM. Biomechamical considerations in the surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy [J]．Spine,1988, 13(7):856-860．
[8] Clements DH，O’Leafy PF. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion[J].Spine, 1990, 15(10):1023-1025.
[9] An HS, Evanich CJ, Nowicki BH. et a1. Ideal thickness of Smith-Robinson graft for anterior cervical fusion[J].Spine,1993, 18(14)：2043-2047．
[10] 万超，沈惠良，刘钊.Borden氏法与Harrison氏法测量颈椎曲度的一致性比较[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志，2012,22(1):34-36.
[11] 陈杰，李浩鹏.力学载荷与椎间盘退变关系的研究进展[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2014,24(9):856-859.
[12] Chan SC，Ferguson SJ，Wuertz K，et a1．Biological response of the intervertebral disc to repetitive short-term cyclic torsion[J]．Spine, 2011，36(24)：2021-2030．
[13]Barbir A，Godhurn KE，Michalek AJ，et a1．Effects of torsion on intervertebral disc gene expression and biomechanics，using a rat tail model[J]．Spine，2011，36(8)：607-614．
[14]Walter BA，Korecki CL，Purmessur D，et a1．Complex loading affects intervertebral disc mechanics and biology[J]．Osteoarthritis Cartilage，2011，19(8)：1011-1018．
[15]Gantenbein B，Gnmhagen T，IJee CR，et a1．An in vitro or．gan culturing system for intervertebral disc explants with vertebral endplates：a feasibility study with ovine caudal discs[J]．Spine，2006，31(23)：2665-2673．
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
