PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate known criteria for assessment of dural ectasia by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in children, adolescents, and young adults with and those without Marfan syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained. MR images of the lumbar spine in 28 patients with clinically proved Marfan syndrome (group A; 17 male, 11 female; age range, 4-21 years; mean, 12.1 years), seven patients with suspicion of Marfan syndrome (group B; six male, one female; age range, 6-18 years; mean, 10.4 years), and 55 patients without Marfan syndrome (group C; 26 male, 29 female; age range, 4-20 years; mean, 10.7 years) were evaluated retrospectively for dural ectasia criteria (scalloping, dural sac ratio, nerve root sleeve diameter, sagittal dural sac width at S1 greater than that at L4) and according to classifications by Ahn et al and Fattori et al. For statistical comparison of results, one-way analysis of variance with Scheffe post hoc comparisons was used, with an overall two-tailed significance at alpha = .05. RESULTS: No significant differences in scalloping and nerve root sleeve diameter were shown between groups. A significant difference was measured for dural sac ratios at L5 and S1 (F test, P = .003 and P < .001 at L5 and S1, respectively; post hoc t test for groups A vs C, P = .004 and P < .001 at L5 and S1, respectively). Significant differences were also obtained between groups A and C for sagittal dural sac width at S1 greater than that at L4 according to the calculated mean difference (for both F test and post hoc t test, P < .001 and P = .003 at S1 and L4, respectively). The Ahn et al and Fattori et al classifications were of limited value. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that only dural sac ratio at L5 and S1 and a sagittal dural sac width at S1 greater than that at L4 are statistically significant criteria for the assessment of dural ectasia in children, adolescents, and young adults. (c) RSNA, 2004.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate known criteria for assessment of dural ectasia by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in children, adolescents, and young adults with and those without Marfan syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained. MR images of the lumbar spine in 28 patients with clinically proved Marfan syndrome (group A; 17 male, 11 female; age range, 4-21 years; mean, 12.1 years), seven patients with suspicion of Marfan syndrome (group B; six male, one female; age range, 6-18 years; mean, 10.4 years), and 55 patients without Marfan syndrome (group C; 26 male, 29 female; age range, 4-20 years; mean, 10.7 years) were evaluated retrospectively for dural ectasia criteria (scalloping, dural sac ratio, nerve root sleeve diameter, sagittal dural sac width at S1 greater than that at L4) and according to classifications by Ahn et al and Fattori et al. For statistical comparison of results, one-way analysis of variance with Scheffe post hoc comparisons was used, with an overall two-tailed significance at alpha = .05. RESULTS: No significant differences in scalloping and nerve root sleeve diameter were shown between groups. A significant difference was measured for dural sac ratios at L5 and S1 (F test, P = .003 and P < .001 at L5 and S1, respectively; post hoc t test for groups A vs C, P = .004 and P < .001 at L5 and S1, respectively). Significant differences were also obtained between groups A and C for sagittal dural sac width at S1 greater than that at L4 according to the calculated mean difference (for both F test and post hoc t test, P < .001 and P = .003 at S1 and L4, respectively). The Ahn et al and Fattori et al classifications were of limited value. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that only dural sac ratio at L5 and S1 and a sagittal dural sac width at S1 greater than that at L4 are statistically significant criteria for the assessment of dural ectasia in children, adolescents, and young adults. (c) RSNA, 2004.
Authors: Bahar Dasgeb; Michael A Morris; Christina M Ring; Darius Mehregan; Michael E Mulligan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Benjamin B Vacula; Chelsea Gray; Michael P Hofkamp; Patrick T Noonan; Russell K McAllister; Kimberly A Pilkinton; Zhiying Diao Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2016-10
Authors: M L A Daniels; J R Lowe; P Roy; M V Patrone; J M Conyers; J P Fine; M R Knowles; K R Birchard Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Luigi Bassani; Christopher S Graffeo; Navid Behrooz; Vineet Tyagi; Taylor Wilson; Saul Penaranda; David Zagzag; Daniel B Rifkin; Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff; Girish Fatterpekar; Dimitris Placantonakis Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2014-01-21