Uri Givon1,2, Chen Hoffman3,4, Alon Friedlander5,4, Anat Achiron6,4. 1. Multiple Sclerosis Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. ugivon@zahav.net.il. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. ugivon@zahav.net.il. 3. Imaging Division, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. 4. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 5. Orthopedic Division, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. 6. Multiple Sclerosis Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The difficult differentiation between multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions and cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) in the cervical spine is well known. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of both lesions is similar, and clinical parameters are usually used for diagnosis. The objective was to establish a reliable radiologic paradigm for diagnosis of demyelinating lesions in the cervical spine. METHODS: The MRI studies of 33 patients with MS (42 lesions) and 55 patients with CSM (60 lesions) were obtained. Lesions were evaluated for vertebral level, lesion location and size in the sagittal and axial planes, cord thickness, well-defined or ill-defined borders, presence of edema and enhancement with gadolinium. Significant differences were used to create a paradigm, which was used for the evaluation of a different group of 32 MRIs with 42 concomitant MS and CSM lesions. RESULTS: Significant differences were seen in the level, location within the cord in both planes, lesion size, cord thickness and lesion border. The MS lesions were well-defined lesions found in C1-3, posterior in the sagittal plane, central in the axial plane, with a normal or increased cord thickness. Good agreement was seen in the validation stage. CONCLUSION: The new CSM-MS lesion score allows accurate diagnosis of demyelinating lesions in the cervical spine vs. CSM lesions.
PURPOSE: The difficult differentiation between multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions and cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) in the cervical spine is well known. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of both lesions is similar, and clinical parameters are usually used for diagnosis. The objective was to establish a reliable radiologic paradigm for diagnosis of demyelinating lesions in the cervical spine. METHODS: The MRI studies of 33 patients with MS (42 lesions) and 55 patients with CSM (60 lesions) were obtained. Lesions were evaluated for vertebral level, lesion location and size in the sagittal and axial planes, cord thickness, well-defined or ill-defined borders, presence of edema and enhancement with gadolinium. Significant differences were used to create a paradigm, which was used for the evaluation of a different group of 32 MRIs with 42 concomitant MS and CSM lesions. RESULTS: Significant differences were seen in the level, location within the cord in both planes, lesion size, cord thickness and lesion border. The MS lesions were well-defined lesions found in C1-3, posterior in the sagittal plane, central in the axial plane, with a normal or increased cord thickness. Good agreement was seen in the validation stage. CONCLUSION: The new CSM-MS lesion score allows accurate diagnosis of demyelinating lesions in the cervical spine vs. CSM lesions.
Authors: Adrienne N Dula; Siddharama Pawate; Richard D Dortch; Robert L Barry; Kristen M George-Durrett; Bailey D Lyttle; Lindsey M Dethrage; John C Gore; Seth A Smith Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Daniel Lubelski; Kalil G Abdullah; Matthew D Alvin; Timothy Y Wang; Amy S Nowacki; Michael P Steinmetz; Richard M Ransohoff; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Lee A Tan; Manish K Kasliwal; Christopher C Muth; Dusan Stefoski; Vincent C Traynelis Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Han Jo Kim; Lindsay A Tetreault; Eric M Massicotte; Paul M Arnold; Andrea C Skelly; Erika D Brodt; K Daniel Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Daniel Lubelski; Matthew D Alvin; Michael Silverstein; Nilgun Senol; Kalil G Abdullah; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 3.134