Three-dimensional movements of the lumbar spine facet joints and segmental movements: in vivo examinations of normal subjects with a new non-invasive method.

INTRODUCTION: Examination with CT and image registration is a new technique that we have previously used to assess 3D segmental motions in the lumbar spine in a phantom. Current multi-slice computed tomography (CT) offers highly accurate spatial volume resolution without significant distortion and modern CT scanners makes it possible to reduce the radiation dose to the patients. Our aim was to assess segmental movement in the lumbar spine with the aforementioned method in healthy subjects and also to determine rotation accuracy on phantom vertebrae. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The subjects were examined in flexion-extension using low dose CT. Eleven healthy, asymptomatic subjects participated in the current study. The subjects were placed on a custom made jig which could provoke the lumbar spine into flexion or extension. CT examination in flexion and extension was performed. The image analysis was performed using a 3D volume fusion tool, registering one of the vertebrae, and then measuring Euler angles and distances in the registered volumes. RESULTS: The mean 3D facet joint translation at L4-L5 was in the right facet joint 6.1 mm (3.1-8.3), left facet joint 6.9 mm (4.9-9.9), at L5-S1: right facet joint 4.5 mm (1.4-6.9), and for the left facet joint 4.8 mm (2.0-7.7). In subjects the mean angles at the L4-L5 level were: in the sagittal plane 14.3°, coronal plane 0.9° (-0.6 to 2.8), and in the transverse plane 0.6° (-0.4 to 1.5), in the L5-S1 level the rotation was in sagittal plane 10.2° (2.4-16.1), coronal plane 0° (-1.2 to 1.2), and in the transverse plane 0.2° (-0.7 to 0.3). Repeated analysis for 3D facet joint movement was on average 5 mm with a standard error of mean of 0.6 mm and repeatability of 1.8 mm (CI 95%). For segmental rotation in the sagittal plane the mean rotation was 11.5° and standard error of mean 1°. The repeatability for rotation was 2.8° (CI 95%). The accuracy for rotation in the phantom was in the sagittal plane 0.7°, coronal plane 1°, and 0.7 in the transverse plane. CONCLUSION: This method to assess movement in the lumbar spine is a truly 3D method with a high precision giving both visual and numerical output. We believe that this method for measuring spine movement is useful both in research and in clinical settings.

Model studies on segmental movement in lumbar spine using a semi-automated program for volume fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a new non-invasive CT method for measuring segmental translations in lumbar spine in a phantom using plastic vertebrae with tantalum markers and human vertebrae. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and four CT volumes were acquired of a phantom incorporating three lumbar vertebrae. Lumbar segmental translation was simulated by altering the position of one vertebra in all three cardinal axes between acquisitions. The CT volumes were combined into 64 case pairs, simulating lumbar segmental movement of up to 3 mm between acquisitions. The relative movement between the vertebrae was evaluated visually and numerically using a volume fusion image post-processing tool. Results were correlated to direct measurements of the phantom. RESULTS: On visual inspection, translation of at least 1 mm or more could be safely detected and correlated with separation between the vertebrae in three dimensions. There were no significant differences between plastic and human vertebrae. Numerically, the accuracy limit for all the CT measurements of the 3D segmental translations was 0.56 mm (median: 0.12; range: -0.76 to +0.49 mm). The accuracy for the sagittal axis was 0.45 mm (median: 0.10; range: -0.46 to +0.62 mm); the accuracy for the coronal axis was 0.46 mm (median: 0.09; range: -0.66 to +0.69 mm); and the accuracy for the axial axis was 0.45 mm (median: 0.05; range: -0.72 to + 0.62 mm). The repeatability, calculated over 10 cases, was 0.35 mm (median: 0.16; range: -0.26 to +0.30 mm). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of this non-invasive method is better than that of current routine methods for detecting segmental movements. The method allows both visual and numerical evaluation of such movements. Further studies are needed to validate this method in patients.