S-Y Kim1, M J Shin2, J H Chang2, C-H Lee1, Y-I Shin1, Y B Shin2, H-Y Ko1. 1. 1] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea [2] Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to characterize the diffusion properties across segments of the spinal cord and peak cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) velocities in the stenotic spinal canal, and to determine the correlation between these properties and clinical and electrophysiological parameters in patients with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: This study was conducted in the University teaching hospital. METHODS: The study involved 17 patients with cervical SCI. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fractional anisotropy (FA) of the spinal cord and peak systolic and diastolic velocities of CSF were measured at the level of maximum compression (region 1) and at the levels above (region 2) and below (region 3) the level of injury with no signal change in conventional magnetic resonance imaging. Neurological and electrophysiological parameters were measured, including American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS), ASIA motor score, ASIA sensory score, Modified Barthel Index, Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM III), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) and motor evoked potentials (MEP). RESULTS: The ADC was significantly higher and the FA was significantly lower in regions 1, 2 and 3 of the SCI patients than in the normal controls (P<0.05 each). FA of the level below correlated with AIS, ASIA sensory score and SCIM III score, and FA of the level above correlated with SSEP latencies and MEP amplitudes (P<0.05 each). The reductions in FA correlated with CSF flow, functional measurements and evoked potentials. CONCLUSIONS: Diffusion tensor imaging can be used to quantify the proximal and distal extents of spinal cord damage. Reductions in FA were correlated with CSF flow, functional measurements and evoked potentials.
STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to characterize the diffusion properties across segments of the spinal cord and peak cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) velocities in the stenotic spinal canal, and to determine the correlation between these properties and clinical and electrophysiological parameters in patients with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: This study was conducted in the University teaching hospital. METHODS: The study involved 17 patients with cervical SCI. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fractional anisotropy (FA) of the spinal cord and peak systolic and diastolic velocities of CSF were measured at the level of maximum compression (region 1) and at the levels above (region 2) and below (region 3) the level of injury with no signal change in conventional magnetic resonance imaging. Neurological and electrophysiological parameters were measured, including American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS), ASIA motor score, ASIA sensory score, Modified Barthel Index, Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM III), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) and motor evoked potentials (MEP). RESULTS: The ADC was significantly higher and the FA was significantly lower in regions 1, 2 and 3 of the SCI patients than in the normal controls (P<0.05 each). FA of the level below correlated with AIS, ASIA sensory score and SCIM III score, and FA of the level above correlated with SSEP latencies and MEP amplitudes (P<0.05 each). The reductions in FA correlated with CSF flow, functional measurements and evoked potentials. CONCLUSIONS: Diffusion tensor imaging can be used to quantify the proximal and distal extents of spinal cord damage. Reductions in FA were correlated with CSF flow, functional measurements and evoked potentials.
Authors: Victor M Haughton; Frank R Korosec; Joshua E Medow; Maria T Dolar; Bermans J Iskandar Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Cynthia A DeBoy; Jiangyang Zhang; Sonny Dike; Irina Shats; Melina Jones; Daniel S Reich; Susumu Mori; Thien Nguyen; Brian Rothstein; Robert H Miller; John T Griffin; Douglas A Kerr; Peter A Calabresi Journal: Brain Date: 2007-06-08 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Ann S Choe; Cristina L Sadowsky; Seth A Smith; Peter C M van Zijl; James J Pekar; Visar Belegu Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Sona Saksena; Feroze B Mohamed; Devon M Middleton; Laura Krisa; Mahdi Alizadeh; Shiva Shahrampour; Chris J Conklin; Adam Flanders; Jürgen Finsterbusch; Mary Jane Mulcahey; Scott H Faro Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Nathan P Skinner; Seung-Yi Lee; Shekar N Kurpad; Brian D Schmit; L Tugan Muftuler; Matthew D Budde Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 11.274