ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2017
Dynamic measurements of cervical neural foramina during neck movements in asymptomatic young volunteers.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of radiological cervical foraminal grading systems.Neuroradiology · 2021Pooled it
- In vivo cervical vertebrae kinematic studies based on dual fluoroscopic imaging system measurement: A narrative review.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Validation and application of a novel in vivo cervical spine kinematics analysis technique.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Spurling's test - inconsistencies in clinical practice.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2021Article
- Correlation of neural foraminal motion after surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy with long-term patient reported outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Article
- Dynamic foraminal dimensions during neck motion 6.5 years after fusion and artificial disc replacement.PloS one · 2020Article
- Differences in Cross-Sectional Intervertebral Foraminal Area From C3 to C7.Global spine journal · 2018Article
- Differences in cervical mobility and pain sensitivity between patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain and asymptomatic subjects: a cross-sectional study.Archives of physiotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNeural foraminal dimensions are considered important in nerve root compression and development of cervical radiculopathy, but baseline data regarding their range during normal motion are not available. An in vivo study of cervical foraminal motion was conducted to characterize normal 3D dynamic foraminal dimensions during physiological neck motion and compare between different tasks and intervertebral segments.
methodsBiplane X-ray imaging and computed tomography-based markerless tracking were used to measure foraminal height (FH) and width (FW) from five asymptomatic subjects during neck axial rotation and extension. FH and FW were quantified as the minimum (SI.Min and AP.Min), range (SI.Range and AP.Range), and median (SI.Med and AP.Med) of superoinferior (SI) and anteroposterior (AP) dimensions for each trial and as the coefficient of variation of these variables from three trials (SI.Med.CV and AP.Med.CV, SI.Range.CV and AP.Range.CV) at C3-4 through C6-7 levels for each subject. Differences were analyzed using mixed model ANOVA.
resultsAP.Range and AP.Med.CV were greater (P < 0.0001) while AP.Min and AP.Range.CV were smaller (P < 0.0006 and P < 0.0005) during neck extension than rotation. SI.Range and SI.Med.CV were greater for extension than rotation at C5-6 (P < 0.002 and P < 0.03), whereas SI.Med.CV was greater for rotation than extension at C3-4 (P < 0.03). AP.Range (P < 0.02), AP.Med.CV (P < 0.05), SI.Range (P < 0.0004), and SI.Med.CV (P < 0.02) were different between cervical levels, the latter two being during extension only.
conclusionsPatterns of FH and FW during normal motion are different between tasks and cervical levels. These findings are expected to provide a basis for future studies of spinal degeneration and surgical efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.