ABSTRACT
Objective Cervical radiculopathy treatment experts' consensus to establish radiculopathy type by using the modified Delphi method. Methods Use document retrieval method to review information and articles about the treatment guidelines and articles of cervical radiculopathy including domestic and international areas, established a protocol about clini?cal consensus of the treatments for cervical radiculopathy. This protocol included 23 questions (the effective proportion of non?operating therapy, neck immobilization, physiotherapy, pharmacologic treatment, surgical indications, contraindications, anteri?or surgical decompression, anterior surgical implants). We performed a modified Delphi survey in which current professional opinions from experienced experts, representing from almost all of the Chinese provinces, were gathered. And then we modi?fied the protocol according to those professional opinions. Three rounds were performed and finally we established consensus. Consensus was achieved with ≥70% agreement. Results The panel included 30 experienced experts. The recycling question?naire's quantity of three rounds were 30(100%), 24(80%) and 16(53.3%) respectively. After three expert assessments, there were 18 questions which achieved with≥70%agreement and these questions accounted for 64.3%(18/28) of all the questions. Consen?sus of the treatments for cervical radiculopathy was reached on 7 aspects, including:the effective proportion of non?operating thera?py (1 question), neck immobilization (1 question), physiotherapy (1 question), pharmacologic treatment (5 questions), surgical indi?cations (3 questions), contraindications (4 questions), surgery (3 questions). Conclusion This modified Delphi study had reached a consensus concerning several treatment issues on cervical radiculopathy which had strong representativeness of experts and good convergence of opinions. In the absence of high?level evidence, at present, these experts' opinion findings will guide health care providers to define appropriate treatment in their regions. Areas with no consensus provide excellent insight for future research.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To study the effect of length of cervical anterior fusion on adjacent levels by Biomechanical test.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Six fresh-frozen human cervical specimens were used in this study. The specimens were tested in flexion, extension, bending and rotation on a spine 3D test system. The specimens were tested intact and then underwent a single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at the C4-5 first, a double-level fusion at the C4-6, and finally extended to triple-level at the C4-7, Based on a hybrid test method. Changes in overall range of motion (ROM), segmental motion and facet joints pressure during flexion, extension, bending and rotation were measured and statistically analyzed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The overall ROM of the entire spinal construct decreased progressively as the single-level fixation extending to 2-level and 3-level (P < 0.05). A progressive increase in ROM above (C3-4) the fused motion segment units (MSUs) was found during flexion, extension and bending (P < 0.05). In bending and extension, a same result was recorded on the average pressure and max pressure of C3-4 facet joints (P < 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>This study has demonstrated that the biomechanics at adjacent levels to a cervical spine fusion are altered and that there was progressively increased adjacent segment motion and stress as a single-level ACDF extended to a 3-level fusion, which might lead to the acceleration of adjacent segment degeneration.</p>
Subject(s)
Humans , Biomechanical Phenomena , Cadaver , Cervical Vertebrae , General Surgery , Diskectomy , Methods , Range of Motion, Articular , Rotation , Spinal Fusion , MethodsABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the optimal insertion position of the Coflex lumbar interspinous dynamic stabilization device.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Six fresh adult human cadaveric lumbar spine specimens (L1-L5) were mounted in a materials testing machine by embedding to clamps with L1 and L5 vertebrae. L3-4 motion segment of each specimen was operated by selective decompression and Coflex interspinous device insertion. The L3 and L4 vertebrae was inserted one needle attached with four marker points respectively, which were used to record the range of motion (ROM). Each lumbar spine specimen was tested according to the loading sequence at 5 groups: intact (keeping lumbar ligamenta and facet joints intact) group, partial destabilized (resection of L3-4 interspinous ligamenta, ligamentum flavum, facet capsule, and bilateral resection 50% of L3 inferior facets) group, 10 mm insertion (distance between apex of U-shaped Coflex and dural sac was 10 mm)group, 5 mm insertion (distance was 5 mm)group, and 0 mm insertion (distance was 0 mm)group. Each lumbar spine specimen was tested repeatedly 3 times according to a loading sequence consisting of flexion, extension, left/right lateral bending, left/right axial rotation, loaded with pure moments of 8 N·m, and was recorded the ROM of operative segment at the third time. ROM of 5 groups in 6 directions respectively were analyzed with one-way ANOVA test and multiple comparisons were based on LSD method.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The means ROM of 5 groups were not all equal in flexion, extension, left/right lateral bending, left/right axial rotation (F = 8.472, 18.301, 7.700, 12.473, 16.809, 6.624; all P < 0.01). The 10 mm insertion group had significant high ROM in 6 directions than the intact group (t = 3.80, 3.82, 4.49, 5.60, 4.96, 2.98, all P < 0.01), but it was no difference comparing with the partial destabilized group (P > 0.05). The ROM of the 5 mm and 0 mm insertion group were no significant differences comparing with the intact group in flexion, extension, left/right axial rotation (P > 0.05), but it were significant differences comparing with the partial destabilized group in the same directions (5 mm insertion group: t = 3.19, 6.34, 5.26, 3.43, all P < 0.01; 0 mm insertion group: t = 4.21, 6.68, 5.81, 3.72, all P < 0.01). There were significant differences in the ROM of left/right lateral bending between the 5mm/0mm insertion groups and the intact group (5 mm insertion group: t = 3.71 and 5.22, all P < 0.01; 0 mm insertion group: t = 3.44 and 4.95, all P < 0.01), but there were no differences comparing with the partial destabilized group in the same directions (P > 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The insertion of Coflex interspinous dynamic stabilization device can maintain the stability of a partially destabilized specimen back to an intact one in flexion, extension and axial rotation when distance between apex of U-shaped Coflex and dural sac was ≤ 5 mm, but can't return the stability in lateral bending. The Coflex can't return the stability of a partially destabilized specimen back to an intact one in 6 directions when distance between apex of U-shaped Coflex and dural sac was ≥ 10 mm.</p>