STUDY DESIGN

A longitudinal study using biplane radiography to measure in vivo intervertebral range of motion (ROM) during dynamic flexion/extension, and rotation.

OBJECTIVE

To longitudinally compare intervertebral maximal ROM and midrange motion in asymptomatic control subjects and single-level arthrodesis patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In vitro studies consistently report that adjacent segment maximal ROM increases superior and inferior to cervical arthrodesis. Previous in vivo results have been conflicting, indicating that maximal ROM may or may not increase superior and/or inferior to the arthrodesis. There are no previous reports of midrange motion in arthrodesis patients and similar-aged controls.

METHODS

Eight single-level (C5/C6) anterior arthrodesis patients (tested 7 ± 1 months and 28 ± 6 months postsurgery) and six asymptomatic control subjects (tested twice, 58 ± 6 months apart) performed dynamic full ROM flexion/extension and axial rotation whereas biplane radiographs were collected at 30 images per second. A previously validated tracking process determined three-dimensional vertebral position from each pair of radiographs with submillimeter accuracy. The intervertebral maximal ROM and midrange motion in flexion/extension, rotation, lateral bending, and anterior-posterior translation were compared between test dates and between groups.

RESULTS

Adjacent segment maximal ROM did not increase over time during flexion/extension, or rotation movements. Adjacent segment maximal rotational ROM was not significantly greater in arthrodesis patients than in corresponding motion segments of similar-aged controls. C4/C5 adjacent segment rotation during the midrange of head motion and maximal anterior-posterior translation were significantly greater in arthrodesis patients than in the corresponding motion segment in controls on the second test date.

CONCLUSION

C5/C6 arthrodesis appears to significantly affect midrange, but not end-range, adjacent segment motions. The effects of arthrodesis on adjacent segment motion may be best evaluated by longitudinal studies that compare maximal and midrange adjacent segment motion to corresponding motion segments of similar-aged controls to determine if the adjacent segment motion is truly excessive.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE