OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 methods of determining cervical spinal stenosis (Torg ratio, space available for the cord [SAC]); determine which of the components of the Torg ratio and the SAC account for more of the variability in the measures; and present standardized SAC values for normal subjects using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DESIGN AND SETTING: The research design consisted of a posttest-only, comparison-group design. The independent variable was method of measurement (Torg ratio and SAC). The dependent variables were Torg ratio and SAC scores. SUBJECTS: Fourteen men (age = 24.4 +/- 2.5 years, height = 181.0 +/- 5.8 cm, weight = 90 +/- 13.5 kg) participated in this study. The C3 to C7 vertebrae were examined in each subject (n = 70). MEASUREMENTS: The Torg ratio was determined by dividing the sagittal spinal-canal diameter by the corresponding sagittal vertebral-body diameter. The SAC was determined by subtracting the sagittal spinal-cord diameter from the corresponding sagittal spinal-canal diameter. The Torg ratio and SAC were measured in millimeters. RESULTS: The SAC ranged from 2.5 to 10.4 mm and was greatest at C7 in 71% (10 of 14) of the subjects. The SAC was least at C3 or C5 in 71% (10 of 14) of the subjects. A Pearson product moment correlation revealed a significant relationship between the Torg ratio and SAC (r =.53, P <.01). Regression analyses revealed the vertebral body (r (2) =.58) accounted for more variability in the Torg ratio than the spinal canal (r (2) =.48). Also, the spinal canal (r (2) =.66) accounted for more variability in the SAC than the spinal cord (r (2) =.23). CONCLUSIONS: The SAC measure relies more on the spinal canal compared with the Torg ratio and, therefore, may be a more effective indicator of spinal stenosis. This is relevant clinically because neurologic injury related to stenosis is a function of the spinal canal and the spinal cord (not the vertebral body). Further research must be done, however, to validate the SAC measure.
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 methods of determining cervical spinal stenosis (Torg ratio, space available for the cord [SAC]); determine which of the components of the Torg ratio and the SAC account for more of the variability in the measures; and present standardized SAC values for normal subjects using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DESIGN AND SETTING: The research design consisted of a posttest-only, comparison-group design. The independent variable was method of measurement (Torg ratio and SAC). The dependent variables were Torg ratio and SAC scores. SUBJECTS: Fourteen men (age = 24.4 +/- 2.5 years, height = 181.0 +/- 5.8 cm, weight = 90 +/- 13.5 kg) participated in this study. The C3 to C7 vertebrae were examined in each subject (n = 70). MEASUREMENTS: The Torg ratio was determined by dividing the sagittal spinal-canal diameter by the corresponding sagittal vertebral-body diameter. The SAC was determined by subtracting the sagittal spinal-cord diameter from the corresponding sagittal spinal-canal diameter. The Torg ratio and SAC were measured in millimeters. RESULTS: The SAC ranged from 2.5 to 10.4 mm and was greatest at C7 in 71% (10 of 14) of the subjects. The SAC was least at C3 or C5 in 71% (10 of 14) of the subjects. A Pearson product moment correlation revealed a significant relationship between the Torg ratio and SAC (r =.53, P <.01). Regression analyses revealed the vertebral body (r (2) =.58) accounted for more variability in the Torg ratio than the spinal canal (r (2) =.48). Also, the spinal canal (r (2) =.66) accounted for more variability in the SAC than the spinal cord (r (2) =.23). CONCLUSIONS: The SAC measure relies more on the spinal canal compared with the Torg ratio and, therefore, may be a more effective indicator of spinal stenosis. This is relevant clinically because neurologic injury related to stenosis is a function of the spinal canal and the spinal cord (not the vertebral body). Further research must be done, however, to validate the SAC measure.
Authors: J S Torg; H Pavlov; S E Genuario; B Sennett; R J Wisneski; B H Robie; C Jahre Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 1986-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Erik E Swartz; Barry P Boden; Ronald W Courson; Laura C Decoster; MaryBeth Horodyski; Susan A Norkus; Robb S Rehberg; Kevin N Waninger Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.860