Spinal Alteration of Motion Segment Integrity Using the Sixth Edition
Patrick R. Luers
Search for other papers by Patrick R. Luers in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Spinal impairment evaluation includes determination of the presence or absence of alteration of motion segment integrity (AOMSI). The diagnosis-related estimate (DRE) method is the principal methodology used to evaluate spinal AOMSI impairment in the fourth and fifth editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, impairment ratings are calculated using the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) method that uses five impairment classes determined by diagnoses and specific criteria, adjusted by consideration of non-key factors and grade modifiers. This article includes a correction of numbers in the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, Figure 17-6. The following factors must be considered to determine if AOMSI is present: 1) flexion/extension radiographs are performed when the individual is at maximum medical improvement and are technically adequate; 2) the proper methodology is used in obtaining measurements of translation and angular motion; 3) normal translation and angular-motion thresholds consistent with the literature are used in determining AOMSI. Imaging modalities such as videofluoroscopy, digital fluoroscopy, and upright/motion magnetic resonance imaging cannot be used to establish an AOMSI permanent impairment using the AMA Guides. A number of technical factors can affect the image quality associated with measurements of AOMSI, including film centering, artifacts, poor edge resolution, endplate normal variations and spurring, and use of analog rather than digital radiography.

  • 1.

    Luers P. Spinal alteration of motion segment integrity. AMA Guides Newsletter. March-April 2007:1.

  • 2.

    White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 1990.

  • 3.

    Luers P, Andersson G, Brigham C, Brooks CN, Talmage JB. Q&A: Cervical MRI with flexion-extension views and alteration of motion segment integrity. AMA Guides Newsletter. March-April 2016:14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Haralson R. Cervical fusions: a paradox in the Fifth Edition. AMA Guides Newsletter. March-April 2004:4.

  • 5.

    Eskay-Auerbach M. Adjacent segment disease: what is it, and how is it rated? AMA Guides Newsletter. March-April 2011:8.

  • 6.

    Luers PR. Motion analysis of the cervical spine. AMA Guides Newsletter. September-October 2004:1.

  • 7.

    Brigham CR, Haralson RH. Impairment tutorial, rating spondylolisthesis. AMA Guides Newsletter. July-August 2003:8.

  • 8.

    White AA, Johnson RM, Panjabi MM, Southwick WO. Biomechanical analysis of clinical stability in the cervical spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;109:8596.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Panjabi MM, Hausfeld JN, White AA. A biomechanical study of the ligamentous instability of the thoracic spine in man. Acta Orthop Scan. 1981;52(3):315326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Devorak J, Panjabi MM, Chang DD, Theiler R, Grob D. Functional radiographic diagnosis of the lumbar spine. Flexion-extension and lateral bending. Spine. 1991;16(5):562571.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Hayes MA, Howard TC, Gruel CR, Kopta JA. Roentgenographic evaluation of lumbar spine-flexion in asymptomatic individuals. Spine. 1989;14(3):327331.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1099 1099 892
Full Text Views 30 30 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
Save