Advertisement

Differences of lumbosacral kinematics between degenerative and induced spondylolisthetic spine

      Abstract

      Objective. To investigate the differences of lumbosacral kinematics between degenerative and induced spondylolisthetic subjects.
      Design. Translations and angulations of spondylolisthetic spine from L1–L2 to L5–S1 were documented by taking X-ray films at flexion, standing and extension positions.
      Background. The unstable mechanism of spondylolisthesis leads to lower back pain. It is important to determine the kinematics and the process of spondylolisthesis.
      Methods. Nineteen subjects with spondylolisthesis participated in this research, seven subjects with diagnosis of degenerative and 12 with induced spondylolisthesis, were taken lateral radiographs at three positions including flexion, standing and extension.
      Results. The differences of angulation among three positions (flexion, standing, and extension) at different levels were statistically significant (P<0.05) in both spondylolisthetic groups. The differences of translation among three different positions in induced spondylolisthetic group had a statistical significance (P<0.05) except at the level of L5–S1 (P>0.05).
      Conclusions. Segmental total translation and angulation at each level of induced spondylolisthetic spine were greater than those of degenerative spondylolisthetic spine except L5–S1 level, which illustrated the evolution of spondylolisthesis from unstable to less unstable.Relevance
      The results showed induced spondylolisthesis may link to degenerative spondylolisthesis. It provided essential knowledge to detect the evolution of degenerative spondylolisthesis clinically earlier.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bodent S.D.
        • Wiesel S.W.
        Lumbosacral segmental motion in normal individuals: have we been measuring instability properly.
        Spine. 1990; 15: 571-576
        • Dupuis P.R.
        • Yong H.K.
        • Cassidy J.D.
        Radiological diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal instability.
        Spine. 1985; 10: 262-276
        • Dvorak J.
        • Antinnes J.A.
        • Panjabi M.M.
        Age and gender related normal motion of the cervical spine.
        Spine. 1992; 17: 393-398
        • Dvorak J.
        • Panjabi M.M.
        • Chang D.G.
        Functional radiographic diagnosis of the lumbar spine.
        Spine. 1991; 16: 562-571
        • Floman Y.
        Progression of lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 342-347
        • Friberg O.
        Lumbar instability: dynamic approach by traction–compression radiography.
        Spine. 1987; 12: 119-129
        • Gertzbein S.D.
        • Seligman J.
        • Holtby R.
        Centrode patterns and segmental instability in degenerative disc disease.
        Spine. 1985; 10: 257-261
        • Hanley E.N.
        • Matteri R.E.
        • Frymoyer J.W.
        Accurate roentgen graphic determination of lumbar flexion–extension.
        Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1976; 115: 145-148
        • Hays M.A.
        • Howard T.C.
        • Gruel C.R.
        • Kopta J.A.
        Roentgenographic evaluation of lumber spine flexion–extension in asymptomatic individuals.
        Spine. 1989; 14: 327-331
        • Hertling D.
        • Kessler R.M.
        Management of Common Musculoskeletal Disorders.
        third ed. JB Lippincott, 1990
        • Holmes A.
        • Wang C.
        • Han Z.H.
        • et al.
        The range and nature of flexion–extension motion spine.
        Spine. 1994; 19: 2505-2510
        • Kalebo P.
        • Kadzioka R.
        • Sward L.
        Compression–traction radiography of lumbar segmental instability.
        Spine. 1990; 15: 351-355
        • Kirkaldy-Willis W.H.
        • Farfan H.F.
        Instability of the lumber spine.
        Clin. Orthop. 1982; 165: 110-123
        • Kuntsson F.
        The instability associated with disc degeneration in the lumbar spine.
        Acta Radiol. 1944; 25: 593-609
        • Lin R.M.
        • Tsai K.H.
        • Chu L.P.
        • Chen P.Q.
        Characteristics of sagittal vertebral alignment in flexion determined by dynamic radiographs of the cervical spine.
        Spine. 2001; 26: 256-261
        • Lin R.M.
        • Yu C.Y.
        • Chang Z.J.
        • Su F.C.
        Flexion–extension rhythm in the lumbosacral spine.
        Spine. 1994; 19: 2204-2209
        • Morgan F.P.
        • King T.
        Primary instability of lumbar vertebrae as a common cause of low back pain.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. 1957; 39B: 6-22
        • Pearcy M.J.
        • Portek I.
        • Shepherd J.
        Three-dimensional X-ray analysis of normal movement in the lumbar spine.
        Spine. 1984; 9: 294-297
        • Pennal G.
        • Conn G.
        • Macdonald G.
        • et al.
        Motion studies of lumber spine: a preliminary report.
        J. Bone Surg. 1972; 54B: 443-452
        • Penning L.
        • Blickman J.R.
        Instability in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a radiological study of several concepts.
        AJR. 1980; 134: 293-301
        • Pope M.H.
        • Panjabi M.M.
        Biomechanical definition of spine instability.
        Spine. 1985; 10: 255-256
        • Putto E.
        • Tallroth K.
        Extension–flexion radiographs for motion studies of the lumber spine: a comparison of two methods.
        Spine. 1990; 15: 107-110
        • Rosenberg N.J.
        Degenerative spondylolisthesis: predisposing factors.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. 1975; 57-A: 467
        • Seligman J.V.
        • Gertzbein S.D.
        • Tile M.
        Computer analysis of spine segment motion in degenerative disc disease with and without loading.
        Spine. 1984; 9: 566-573
        • Shaffer W.O.
        • Spratt K.F.
        • Weinstein J.
        • Lehmann T.R.
        • Goel V.
        The consistency and accuracy of roentgenograms for measuring sagittal translation in the lumbar vertebral motion segment.
        Spine. 1990; 15: 741-750
        • Strokes I.A.F.
        • Frymoyer J.W.
        Segmental motion and instability.
        Spine. 1987; : 688-691
        • White A.
        • Panjabi M.M.
        The basic kinematics of human spine: a review of past and current knowledge.
        Spine. 1978; 3: 12-20
        • White A.A.
        • Panjabi M.M.
        Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine.
        second ed. JB Lippincott, Philadelphia1990 (pp. 17–19)
        • Wiltse L.L.
        • Newman P.H.
        • Macnab I.
        Classification of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.
        Clin. Orthop. 1976; 117: 23