• 한국전문물리치료학회지
• /
• 제22권4호
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2015

This case report describes the effectiveness of cervical corrective exercises in a patient with cervical radiculopathy (CR) who experienced radicular pain, upper limb paresis, and limited functional activity. A 39-year-old male with cervical radiculopathy performed the cervical corrective exercises for reducing pain. Pain intensity, cervical posture, and active range of motion of cervical intersegmental spine motion were measured baseline, after 4 weeks, and after 8 weeks with self-reported questionnaire and radiographs. After 8 weeks of intervention, the patient demonstrated alleviated radicular symptoms, improved neck posture and active range of flexion and extension of the cervical intersegmental spine. Especially in the angle between the cervical vertebra 6 and 7, the angle was changed from $-4.69^{\circ}$ to $3.30^{\circ}$ during resting position after intervention. The present case indicates that the cervical corrective exercises might be a possible treatment to effectively reduce radicular symptoms, improve neck posture, and active cervical intersegmental motion for patient with CR.

• 대한의용생체공학회:의공학회지
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.139-145
• /
• 2008

Many recent studies suggest that the posterior dynamic stabilization(PDS) can be a more physiologically-relevant alternative to the rigid fixation for the patients suffering from low back pain. However, its biomechanical effects or clinically proven efficacies still remain unknown. In this study, we evaluated kinematic behaviors of the lower lumbar spine with the PDS system and then compared to those of the rigid fixation system using finite element (FE) analysis. A validated FE model of intact lumbar spine(L2-L5) was developed. The implanted model was then constructed after modification from the intact to simulate two kinds of pedicle screw systems (PDS and the rigid fixation). Hybrid protocol was used to flex, extend, laterally bend and axially rotate the FE model. Results showed that the PDS systems are more flexible than rigid fixation systems, yet not flexible enough to preserve motion. PDS system allowed $16.2{\sim}42.2%$ more intersegmental rotation than the rigid fixation at the implanted level. One the other hand, at the adjacent level it allowed more range of motion ($2.0%{\sim}8.3%$) than the rigid fixation. The center of rotation of the PDS model remained closer to that of the intact spine. These results suggest that the PDS system could be able to prevent excessive motion at the adjacent levels and restore the spinal kinematics.