Literature DB >> 21656052

Is spinal stenosis assessment dependent on slice orientation? A magnetic resonance imaging study.

Lucy Henderson1, Gerit Kulik, Delphine Richarme, Nicolas Theumann, Constantin Schizas.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treatment is based primarily on the clinical criteria providing that imaging confirms radiological stenosis. The radiological measurement more commonly used is the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA). It has been recently shown that grading stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac as seen on axial T2 MRI images, better reflects severity of stenosis than DSCA and is of prognostic value. This radiological prospective study investigates the variability of surface measurements and morphological grading of stenosis for varying degrees of angulation of the T2 axial images relative to the disc space as observed in clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lumbar spine TSE T2 three-dimensional (3D) MRI sequences were obtained from 32 consecutive patients presenting with either suspected spinal stenosis or low back pain. Axial reconstructions using the OsiriX software at 0°, 10°, 20° and 30° relative to the disc space orientation were obtained for a total of 97 levels. For each level, DSCA was digitally measured and stenosis was graded according to the 4-point (A-D) morphological grading by two observers.
RESULTS: A good interobserver agreement was found in grade evaluation of stenosis (k = 0.71). DSCA varied significantly as the slice orientation increased from 0° to +10°, +20° and +30° at each level examined (P < 0.0001) (-15 to +32% at 10°, -24 to +143% at 20° and -29 to +231% at 30° of slice orientation). Stenosis definition based on the surface measurements changed in 39 out of the 97 levels studied, whereas the morphology grade was modified only in two levels (P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: The need to obtain continuous slices using the classical 2D MRI acquisition technique entails often at least a 10° slice inclination relative to one of the studied discs. Even at this low angulation, we found a significantly statistical difference between surface changes and morphological grading change. In clinical practice, given the above findings, it might therefore not be necessary to align the axial cuts to each individual disc level which could be more time-consuming than obtaining a single series of axial cuts perpendicular to the middle of the lumbar spine or to the most stenotic level. In conclusion, morphological grading seems to offer an alternative means of assessing severity of spinal stenosis that is little affected by image acquisition technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21656052      PMCID: PMC3535218          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1857-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  17 in total

1.  Optimized single-slab three-dimensional spin-echo MR imaging of the brain.

Authors:  J P Mugler; S Bao; R V Mulkern; C R Guttmann; R L Robertson; F A Jolesz; J R Brookeman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Qualitative assessment of cervical spinal stenosis: observer variability on CT and MR images.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Stafira; Jagadeesh R Sonnad; William T C Yuh; David R Huard; Robin E Acker; Dan L Nguyen; Joan E Maley; Faridali G Ramji; Wen-Bin Li; Christopher M Loftus
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Lumbar lordosis measurement. A new method versus Cobb technique.

Authors:  K V Chernukha; R H Daffner; D H Reigel
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Comparison between MRI and myelography in lumbar spinal canal stenosis for the decision of levels of decompression surgery.

Authors:  Masahiro Morita; Akira Miyauchi; Shinya Okuda; Takenori Oda; Motoki Iwasaki
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2011-02

5.  Assessment of two thoracolumbar fracture classification systems as used by multiple surgeons.

Authors:  Kirkham B Wood; Gaurav Khanna; Alexander R Vaccaro; Paul M Arnold; Mitchel B Harris; Amir A Mehbod
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  The significance of oblique cuts on CT scans of the spinal canal in terms of anatomic measurements.

Authors:  N Schönström
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Dynamic changes in the dimensions of the lumbar spinal canal: an experimental study in vitro.

Authors:  N Schönström; S Lindahl; J Willén; T Hansson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.494

8.  Pressure changes within the cauda equina following constriction of the dural sac. An in vitro experimental study.

Authors:  N Schönström; N F Bolender; D M Spengler; T H Hansson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Evaluation of lumbar lordosis. A prospective and retrospective study.

Authors:  R Fernand; D E Fox
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  C Hamanishi; N Matukura; M Fujita; M Tomihara; S Tanaka
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1994-10
View more
  9 in total

1.  Morphometry of the lower lumbar intervertebral discs and endplates: comparative analyses of new MRI data with previous findings.

Authors:  Ruoliang Tang; Celal Gungor; Richard F Sesek; Kenneth Bo Foreman; Sean Gallagher; Gerard A Davis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Diffusion tensor imaging correlates with the clinical assessment of disease severity in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and predicts outcome following surgery.

Authors:  J G A Jones; S Y Cen; R M Lebel; P C Hsieh; M Law
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  MRI evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis: is a rapid visual assessment as good as area measurement?

Authors:  Greger Lønne; Bent Ødegård; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Tore K Solberg; Kjell Arne Kvistad; Øystein P Nygaard
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Can unilateral-approach minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion attain indirect contralateral decompression? A preliminary report of 66 MRI analysis.

Authors:  Moon-Chan Kim; Jeong-Uk Park; Woo-Chul Kim; Hong-Seok Lee; Hung-Tae Chung; Moo-Won Kim; Nam-Su Chung
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Reproducibility, temporal stability, and functional correlation of diffusion MR measurements within the spinal cord in patients with asymptomatic cervical stenosis or cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Noriko Salamon; Davis C Woodworth; Hajime Yokota; Langston T Holly
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2018-02-09

6.  Image changes of paraspinal muscles and clinical correlations in patients with unilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Yan-Yu Chen; Jwo-Luen Pao; Chen-Kun Liaw; Wei-Li Hsu; Rong-Sen Yang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Dural sac cross-sectional area and morphological grade show significant associations with patient-rated outcome of surgery for lumbar central spinal stenosis.

Authors:  A F Mannion; T F Fekete; D Pacifico; D O'Riordan; S Nauer; M von Büren; C Schizas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement of Morphological Grading for Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Clemens Weber; Vidar Rao; Sasha Gulati; Kjell A Kvistad; Øystein P Nygaard; Greger Lønne
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-05-06

9.  Sagittal Normal Limits of Lumbosacral Spine in a Large Adult Population: A Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis.

Authors:  Antonio Pierro; Savino Cilla; Giuseppina Maselli; Eleonora Cucci; Matteo Ciuffreda; Giuseppina Sallustio
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2017-08-31
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.