OBJECTIVES: This study aims to develop a highly accurate, portable FMD and to demonstrate real-time monitoring of force applied by health professionals during JMT without altering its execution.
METHODS: The FMD was constructed using the FlexiForce sensor, potential divider, ATmega 328 microcontroller, custom-written software, and liquid crystal display. The calibration, accuracy, and cyclic repeatability of the FMD were tested from 0 to 90 N applied load with a gold standard universal testing machine. For practical demonstration, the FMD was tested for monitoring applied force by a physiotherapist while performing Maitland's grade I to IV over the 6th cervical vertebra among 30 healthy subjects.
RESULTS: The obtained Bland-Altman plot limits agreement for accuracy, and cyclic repeatability was -1.57 N to 1.22 N, and -1.26 N to 1.26 N, respectively with standard deviation and standard error of the mean values of 3.77% and 0.73% and 2.15% and 0.23%, respectively. The test-retest reliability of the FMD tested by the same researcher at an interval of one week showed an excellent intra-class correlation coefficient of r= 1.00. The obtained force readings for grade I to IV among 30 subjects ranged from 10.33 N to 45.24 N.
CONCLUSIONS: Appreciable performance of the developed FMD suggested that it may be useful to monitor force applied by clinicians during JMT among neck pain subjects and is a useful educational tool for academicians to teach mobilization skills.
OBJECTIVE: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice.
METHODS: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC.
RESULTS: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text.
CONCLUSIONS: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care.
Methods: Bedside instruments that can be used includes a measuring tape, compass, goniometer, inclinometer and cervical range of motion (CROM) instrument.
Discussion: Cervical flexion-extension, lateral flexion and rotation will be assessed with bedside instruments. This would aid in increasing accuracy and precision of objective measurement while conducting clinical examination to determine the cervical range of motion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty normal cervical CT scans were reviewed. A minimum lateral angulation of a 3.5 mm lateral mass screw which was required to avoid penetration of the vertebral artery canal at each level of vertebra were measured.
RESULTS: The mean lateral angulations of the lateral mass screws (with 95% confidence interval) to avoid vertebral artery canal penetration, in relation to the starting point at the midpoint (Roy-Camille), 1 mm medial (An), and 2 mm medial (Magerl) to the midpoint of lateral mass were 6.8° (range, 6.3-7.4°), 10.3° (range, 9.8-10.8°), and 14.1° (range, 13.6-14.6°) at C3 vertebrae; 6.8° (range, 6.2-7.5°), 10.7° (range, 10.0-11.5°), and 14.1° (range, 13.4-14.8°) at C4 vertebrae; 6.6° (range, 6.0-7.2°), 10.1° (range, 9.3-10.8°), and 13.5° (range, 12.8-14.3°) at C5 vertebrae and 7.6° (range, 6.9-8.3°), 10.9° (range, 10.3-11.6°), and 14.3° (range, 13.7-15.0°) at C6 vertebrae. The recommended lateral angulations for Roy-Camille, Magerl, and An are 10°, 25°,and 30°, respectively. Statistically, there is a higher risk of vertebral foramen violation with the Roy-Camille technique at C3, C4 and C6 levels, P < 0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: Magerl and An techniques have a wide margin of safety. Caution should be practised with Roy-Camille's technique at C3, C4, and C6 levels to avoid vertebral vessels injury in Asian population.
OBJECTIVE: Anterior-alone surgery has gained wider reception for subaxial cervical spine facets dislocation. Questions remain on its efficacy and safety as a stand-alone entity within the contexts of concurrent facet fractures, unilateral versus bilateral dislocations, anterior open reduction, and old dislocation.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed with search strategy using translatable MESH terms across MEDLINE, EMBASE, VHL Regional Portal, and CENTRAL databases on patients with subaxial cervical dislocation intervened via anterior-alone approach. Two reviewers independently screened for eligible studies. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) flow chart was adhered to. Nine retrospective studies were included. Narrative synthesis was performed to determine primary outcomes on spinal fusion and revisions and secondary outcomes on new occurrence or deterioration of neurology and infection rate.
RESULTS: Nonunion was not encountered across all contexts. A total of 0.86% of unilateral facet dislocation (1 out of 116) with inadequate reduction due to facet fragments between the facet joints removed its malpositioned plate following fusion. No new neurological deficit was observed. Cases that underwent anterior open reduction did not encounter failure that require subsequent posterior reduction surgery. One study (N = 52) on old dislocation incorporated partial corpectomy in their approach and limited anterior-alone approach to cases with persistent instability.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review supports the efficacy and success of anterior reduction, fusion, and instrumentation for cervical facet fracture dislocation. It is safe from a neurological standpoint. Revision rate due to concurrent facet fracture is low. Certain patients may require posteriorly based surgery or in specific cases combined anterior and posterior procedures.