Erika J Ulbrich1, Christian Schraner, Chris Boesch, Juerg Hodler, André Busato, Suzanne E Anderson, Sandra Eigenheer, Heinz Zimmermann, Matthias Sturzenegger. 1. From the Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology (E.J.U., C.S., S.E.A., S.E.), Department of Emergency Medicine (H.Z.), and Department of Neurology (M.S.), University Hospital and University of Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland (E.J.U., J.H.); and Departments of Clinical Research and Radiology (C.B.) and Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (A.B.), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide normal values of the cervical spinal canal and spinal cord dimensions in several planes with respect to spinal level, age, sex, and body height. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board; all individuals provided signed informed consent. In a prospective multicenter study, two blinded raters independently examined cervical spine magnetic resonance (MR) images of 140 healthy volunteers who were white. The midsagittal diameters and areas of spinal canal and spinal cord, respectively, were measured at the midvertebral levels of C1, C3, and C6. A multivariate general linear model described the influence of sex, body height, age, and spinal level on the measured values. RESULTS: There were differences for sex, spinal level, interaction between sex and level, and body height, while age had significant yet limited influence. Normative ranges for the sagittal diameters and areas of spinal canal and spinal cord were defined at C1, C3, and C6 levels for men and women. In addition to a calculation of normative ranges for a specific sex, spinal level, age, and body height data, data for three different height subgroups at 45 years of age were extracted. These results show a range of the spinal canal dimensions at C1 (from 10.7 to 19.7 mm), C3 (from 9.4 to 17.2 mm), and C6 (from 9.2 to 16.8 mm) levels. CONCLUSION: The dimensions of the cervical spinal canal and cord in healthy individuals are associated with spinal level, sex, age, and height. Online supplemental material is available for this article. RSNA, 2013
PURPOSE: To provide normal values of the cervical spinal canal and spinal cord dimensions in several planes with respect to spinal level, age, sex, and body height. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board; all individuals provided signed informed consent. In a prospective multicenter study, two blinded raters independently examined cervical spine magnetic resonance (MR) images of 140 healthy volunteers who were white. The midsagittal diameters and areas of spinal canal and spinal cord, respectively, were measured at the midvertebral levels of C1, C3, and C6. A multivariate general linear model described the influence of sex, body height, age, and spinal level on the measured values. RESULTS: There were differences for sex, spinal level, interaction between sex and level, and body height, while age had significant yet limited influence. Normative ranges for the sagittal diameters and areas of spinal canal and spinal cord were defined at C1, C3, and C6 levels for men and women. In addition to a calculation of normative ranges for a specific sex, spinal level, age, and body height data, data for three different height subgroups at 45 years of age were extracted. These results show a range of the spinal canal dimensions at C1 (from 10.7 to 19.7 mm), C3 (from 9.4 to 17.2 mm), and C6 (from 9.2 to 16.8 mm) levels. CONCLUSION: The dimensions of the cervical spinal canal and cord in healthy individuals are associated with spinal level, sex, age, and height. Online supplemental material is available for this article. RSNA, 2013
Authors: Nico Papinutto; Regina Schlaeger; Valentina Panara; Eduardo Caverzasi; Sinyeob Ahn; Kevin J Johnson; Alyssa H Zhu; William A Stern; Gerhard Laub; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Thomas Sartoretti; Robert P Ganley; Ruiqing Ni; Patrick Freund; Hanns Ulrich Zeilhofer; Jan Klohs Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Nico Papinutto; Regina Schlaeger; Valentina Panara; Alyssa H Zhu; Eduardo Caverzasi; William A Stern; Stephen L Hauser; Roland G Henry Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240