Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study

Abstract This study compares upper cervical spine range of motion (ROM) in the three cardinal planes before and after occiput-atlas (C0–C1) stabilization. After the dissection of the superficial structures to the alar ligament and the fixation of C2, ten cryopreserved upper cervical columns were man...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	César Hidalgo-García, Ana I. Lorente, Carlos López-de-Celis, Orosia Lucha-López, Miguel Malo-Urriés, Jacobo Rodríguez-Sanz, Mario Maza-Frechín, José Miguel Tricás-Moreno, John Krauss, Albert Pérez-Bellmunt
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/77dd53538f1f4a95bc69a11777170b8d
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:77dd53538f1f4a95bc69a11777170b8d
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:77dd53538f1f4a95bc69a11777170b8d2021-12-02T15:00:20ZEffects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study10.1038/s41598-021-90052-62045-2322https://doaj.org/article/77dd53538f1f4a95bc69a11777170b8d2021-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90052-6https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract This study compares upper cervical spine range of motion (ROM) in the three cardinal planes before and after occiput-atlas (C0–C1) stabilization. After the dissection of the superficial structures to the alar ligament and the fixation of C2, ten cryopreserved upper cervical columns were manually mobilized in the three cardinal planes of movement without and with a screw stabilization of C0–C1. Upper cervical ROM and mobilization force were measured using the Vicon motion capture system and a load cell respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 19.8° ± 5.2° in flexion and 14.3° ± 7.7° in extension. With stabilization, the ROM was 11.5° ± 4.3° and 6.6° ± 3.5°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 4.7° ± 2.3° in right lateral flexion and 5.6° ± 3.2° in left lateral flexion. With stabilization, the ROM was 2.3° ± 1.4° and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 33.9° ± 6.7° in right rotation and 28.0° ± 6.9° in left rotation. With stabilization, the ROM was 28.5° ± 7.0° and 23.7° ± 8.5° respectively. Stabilization of C0–C1 reduced the upper cervical ROM by 46.9% in the sagittal plane, 55.3% in the frontal plane, and 15.6% in the transverse plane. Also, the resistance to movement during upper cervical mobilization increased following C0–C1 stabilization.César Hidalgo-GarcíaAna I. LorenteCarlos López-de-CelisOrosia Lucha-LópezMiguel Malo-UrriésJacobo Rodríguez-SanzMario Maza-FrechínJosé Miguel Tricás-MorenoJohn KraussAlbert Pérez-BellmuntNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-13 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q César Hidalgo-García Ana I. Lorente Carlos López-de-Celis Orosia Lucha-López Miguel Malo-Urriés Jacobo Rodríguez-Sanz Mario Maza-Frechín José Miguel Tricás-Moreno John Krauss Albert Pérez-Bellmunt Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study
description	Abstract This study compares upper cervical spine range of motion (ROM) in the three cardinal planes before and after occiput-atlas (C0–C1) stabilization. After the dissection of the superficial structures to the alar ligament and the fixation of C2, ten cryopreserved upper cervical columns were manually mobilized in the three cardinal planes of movement without and with a screw stabilization of C0–C1. Upper cervical ROM and mobilization force were measured using the Vicon motion capture system and a load cell respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 19.8° ± 5.2° in flexion and 14.3° ± 7.7° in extension. With stabilization, the ROM was 11.5° ± 4.3° and 6.6° ± 3.5°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 4.7° ± 2.3° in right lateral flexion and 5.6° ± 3.2° in left lateral flexion. With stabilization, the ROM was 2.3° ± 1.4° and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 33.9° ± 6.7° in right rotation and 28.0° ± 6.9° in left rotation. With stabilization, the ROM was 28.5° ± 7.0° and 23.7° ± 8.5° respectively. Stabilization of C0–C1 reduced the upper cervical ROM by 46.9% in the sagittal plane, 55.3% in the frontal plane, and 15.6% in the transverse plane. Also, the resistance to movement during upper cervical mobilization increased following C0–C1 stabilization.
format	article
author	César Hidalgo-García Ana I. Lorente Carlos López-de-Celis Orosia Lucha-López Miguel Malo-Urriés Jacobo Rodríguez-Sanz Mario Maza-Frechín José Miguel Tricás-Moreno John Krauss Albert Pérez-Bellmunt
author_facet	César Hidalgo-García Ana I. Lorente Carlos López-de-Celis Orosia Lucha-López Miguel Malo-Urriés Jacobo Rodríguez-Sanz Mario Maza-Frechín José Miguel Tricás-Moreno John Krauss Albert Pérez-Bellmunt
author_sort	César Hidalgo-García
title	Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study
title_short	Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study
title_full	Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study
title_fullStr	Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed	Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study
title_sort	effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/77dd53538f1f4a95bc69a11777170b8d
work_keys_str_mv	AT cesarhidalgogarcia effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT anailorente effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT carloslopezdecelis effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT orosialuchalopez effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT miguelmalourries effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT jacoborodriguezsanz effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT mariomazafrechin effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT josemigueltricasmoreno effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT johnkrauss effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy AT albertperezbellmunt effectsofoccipitalatlasstabilizationintheuppercervicalspinekinematicsaninvitrostudy
_version_	1718389209223397376

Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study

Ejemplares similares