Masahito Oshina1,2, Masashi Tanaka3, Yasushi Oshima4, Sakae Tanaka4, K Daniel Riew3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. oshinamasahito@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. oshinamasahito@gmail.com. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although cervical alignment is better assessed using standing radiography than supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), few studies have investigated this. This study aimed to investigate the difference in alignment between standing radiographs and supine MRI images, and assess whether neck position affects the cervical parameters and neurological changes. METHODS: We analyzed 53 patients, measuring the O-C2 angle, C2-7 angle (the distinction between the lordotic and kyphotic groups), T1 slope, neck tilt, thoracic inlet angle, and the C2-7 sagittal vertical axis. Inter- and intra-group analyses were conducted to identify any difference between standing radiography and supine MRI. Statistical differences between the cervical parameters were compared. RESULTS: Strong correlations were noted between the equivalent parameters in the radiographs and MRI images, whereas no significant difference was observed in C2-7 angle in the kyphotic group between the radiographs and MRI images, or for neck tilt between the radiographs and MRI images. However, in the lordotic group, the C2-7 angle was significantly different between the two types of images and larger in the radiographs than in the MRI images (C2-7 angle in the radiographs: C2-7 angle in the MRI images: 4.49°, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neck tilt was a constant parameter. The C2-7 angle in the kyphotic group was similar between the standing radiographs and the supine MRI images; however, the C2-7 angle in the lordotic group was different. Therefore, we recommend that standing cervical radiographs should be preoperatively obtained for all surgical patients. The slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: Although cervical alignment is better assessed using standing radiography than supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), few studies have investigated this. This study aimed to investigate the difference in alignment between standing radiographs and supine MRI images, and assess whether neck position affects the cervical parameters and neurological changes. METHODS: We analyzed 53 patients, measuring the O-C2 angle, C2-7 angle (the distinction between the lordotic and kyphotic groups), T1 slope, neck tilt, thoracic inlet angle, and the C2-7 sagittal vertical axis. Inter- and intra-group analyses were conducted to identify any difference between standing radiography and supine MRI. Statistical differences between the cervical parameters were compared. RESULTS: Strong correlations were noted between the equivalent parameters in the radiographs and MRI images, whereas no significant difference was observed in C2-7 angle in the kyphotic group between the radiographs and MRI images, or for neck tilt between the radiographs and MRI images. However, in the lordotic group, the C2-7 angle was significantly different between the two types of images and larger in the radiographs than in the MRI images (C2-7 angle in the radiographs: C2-7 angle in the MRI images: 4.49°, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neck tilt was a constant parameter. The C2-7 angle in the kyphotic group was similar between the standing radiographs and the supine MRI images; however, the C2-7 angle in the lordotic group was different. Therefore, we recommend that standing cervical radiographs should be preoperatively obtained for all surgical patients. The slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: L Gerigk; T Bostel; A Hegewald; C Thomé; J Scharf; C Groden; E Neumaier-Probst Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Monchai Ruangchainikom; Michael D Daubs; Akinobu Suzuki; Tetsuo Hayashi; Gil Weintraub; Christopher J Lee; Hirokazu Inoue; Haijun Tian; Bayan Aghdasi; Trevor P Scott; Kevin H Phan; Areesak Chotivichit; Jeffrey C Wang Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Avinash G Patwardhan; Robert M Havey; Saeed Khayatzadeh; Muturi G Muriuki; Leonard I Voronov; Gerard Carandang; Ngoc-Lam Nguyen; Alexander J Ghanayem; Dale Schuit; Alpesh A Patel; Zachary A Smith; William Sears Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Chong Weng; Justin Wang; Alexander Tuchman; Jian Wang; Changfeng Fu; Patrick C Hsieh; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Douglas D Nowak; Joseph K Lee; Daniel E Gelb; Kornelis A Poelstra; Steven C Ludwig Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Justin S Smith; Virginie Lafage; Devon J Ryan; Christopher I Shaffrey; Frank J Schwab; Alpesh A Patel; Darrel S Brodke; Paul M Arnold; K Daniel Riew; Vincent C Traynelis; Kris Radcliff; Alexander R Vaccaro; Michael G Fehlings; Christopher P Ames Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Sravisht Iyer; Lawrence G Lenke; Venu M Nemani; Michael Fu; Grant D Shifflett; Todd J Albert; Brenda A Sides; Lionel N Metz; Matthew E Cunningham; Han Jo Kim Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468