Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 15;49(24):1743-1749.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005129. Epub 2024 Aug 26.

Crossing the Cervicothoracic Junction: A Biomechanical Investigation of C7 Versus T1 Caudal Selection's Effect on Adjacent Segment Motion in Posterior Cervical Fusion

Christopher L McDonald  1 , Rohit Badida  2 , Daniel Alsoof  1 , Mohammad Daher  1 , Alex Homer  3 , Joseph J Crisco  2 , Peter T Wronski  2 , Bassel G Diebo  1 , Alan H Daniels  1 , Eren O Kuris  1
Affiliations

Crossing the Cervicothoracic Junction: A Biomechanical Investigation of C7 Versus T1 Caudal Selection's Effect on Adjacent Segment Motion in Posterior Cervical Fusion

Christopher L McDonald et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). .

Abstract

Study design: A biomechanical study.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical adjacent segment effects of multilevel posterior cervical fusion constructs that terminate at C7 compared with those that terminate at T1 in cadaveric specimens.

Background: The cervicothoracic junction poses unique challenges for spine surgeons. Deciding to terminate multilevel posterior cervical fusion constructs at C7 or extend them across the cervicothoracic junction remains a controversial issue.

Methods: Six cadaveric specimens underwent biomechanical testing in the intact state and after instrumentation with constructs from C3 and terminating at either C7 or T1. Range of motion (ROM) was assessed in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation globally and at cranial and caudal adjacent segments.

Results: There was a significant decrease in overall flexion/extension by both C7 (-35.5°, P =0.002) and T1 (-39.8°, P =0.002) instrumentation compared with the intact spine. T1 instrumentation had significantly lower (-4.3°, P =0.008) flexion/extension ROM compared with C7 instrumentation. There were significant decreases in axial rotation by both C7 (-31.4°, P =0.009) and T1 (-36.8°, P =0.009) instrumentation compared with the intact spine, but no significant differences were observed between the 2. There were also significant decreases in lateral bending by both C7 (-27.9°, P =0.022) and T1 (-33.7°, P =0.022) instrumentation compared with the intact spine, but no significant differences were observed between the 2. No significant differences were observed in ROM at cranial or caudal adjacent segments between constructs terminating at C7 and those extending to T1.

Conclusion: This biomechanical investigation demonstrates that constructs that cross the cervicothoracic junction experience less overall spinal motion in flexion-extension compared with those that terminate at C7. However, contrary to prior studies, there is no difference in cranial and caudal adjacent segment motion. Surgeons should make clinical decisions regarding the caudal extent of fusion in multilevel posterior cervical fusions without major concerns about adjacent segment motion.

Keywords: biomechanics; cervicothoracic junction; range of motion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

B.G.D. discloses the following: receives consulting fees from Clariance, SpineArt, and SpineVision. A.H.D. discloses the following: receives royalties from Spineart and Stryker, consulting fees from Medtornic, research support from Alphatec, Medtronic, and Orthofix, and Fellowship support from Medtronic. E.O.K. discloses the following: paid consultant for SeaSpine and SpineArt, receives royalties from Styker. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004;4:S190–S194.
    1. Wang VY, Chou D. The cervicothoracic junction. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2007;18:365–371.
    1. Truumees E, Singh D, Lavelle W, et al. Is it safe to stop at C7 during multilevel posterior cervical decompression and fusion? – multicenter analysis. Spine J. 2021;21:90–95.
    1. Osterhoff G, Ryang YM, von Oelhafen J, Meyer B, Ringel F. Posterior multilevel instrumentation of the lower cervical spine: is bridging the cervicothoracic junction necessary? World Neurosurg. 2017;103:419–423.
    1. Aflatooni J, Mohanty S, Angelov I, et al. Crossing the cervicothoracic junction: an evaluation of radiographic alignment, functional outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2023;38:1–9.