Zachary A Smith1, Kenneth A Weber2, Monica Paliwal3, Benjamin S Hopkins3, Alexander J Barry4, Donald Cantrell5, Aruna Ganju3, Tyler R Koski3, Todd B Parrish5, Yasin Dhaher6. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Electronic address: zsmith1@nm.org. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Arms + Hands Lab, Shirley Ryan Ability Lab, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 6. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: White matter volume loss may be an anatomic driver in the development of clinical symptoms in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Considerably less attention has been devoted to gray matter (GM) injury. Newly developed atlas-based mapping techniques may allow evaluation of GM cord volume alterations in CSM. METHODS: There were 29 subjects evaluated: 15 patients with CSM (61.1 ± 8.7 years old) and 14 age-matched control subjects (56.1 ± 5.3 years old). All subjects underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine. Post-processing with the Spinal Cord Toolbox (v3.0) provided GM volumetric analysis. Clinical scores collected included modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, neck and arm numeric rating scales, Nurick Scale, and Neck Disability Index. All volumes were normalized to account for anatomic variability. RESULTS: Normalized mean ventral GM volume in the compression region was significantly lower in patients compared with control subjects (1.103 ± 0.21 vs. 1.35 ± 0.32, P = 0.027). Normalized mean dorsal volume in the compression region was decreased in patients compared with control subjects (0.90 ± 0.17 vs. 1.04 ± 0.15, P = 0.049). GM volumes were associated with clinical scores, including Neck Disability Index, arm numeric rating scale, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, and Nurick Scale scores (P = 0.022, P = 0.004, P = 0.027, and P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: GM volume loss may be evaluated through atlas-based post-processing techniques and may correlate with clinical symptoms in CSM.
BACKGROUND: White matter volume loss may be an anatomic driver in the development of clinical symptoms in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Considerably less attention has been devoted to gray matter (GM) injury. Newly developed atlas-based mapping techniques may allow evaluation of GM cord volume alterations in CSM. METHODS: There were 29 subjects evaluated: 15 patients with CSM (61.1 ± 8.7 years old) and 14 age-matched control subjects (56.1 ± 5.3 years old). All subjects underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine. Post-processing with the Spinal Cord Toolbox (v3.0) provided GM volumetric analysis. Clinical scores collected included modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, neck and arm numeric rating scales, Nurick Scale, and Neck Disability Index. All volumes were normalized to account for anatomic variability. RESULTS: Normalized mean ventral GM volume in the compression region was significantly lower in patients compared with control subjects (1.103 ± 0.21 vs. 1.35 ± 0.32, P = 0.027). Normalized mean dorsal volume in the compression region was decreased in patients compared with control subjects (0.90 ± 0.17 vs. 1.04 ± 0.15, P = 0.049). GM volumes were associated with clinical scores, including Neck Disability Index, arm numeric rating scale, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, and Nurick Scale scores (P = 0.022, P = 0.004, P = 0.027, and P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: GM volume loss may be evaluated through atlas-based post-processing techniques and may correlate with clinical symptoms in CSM.
Authors: Benjamin S Hopkins; Kenneth A Weber; Kartik Kesavabhotla; Monica Paliwal; Donald R Cantrell; Zachary A Smith Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Venu M Nemani; Han Jo Kim; Chaiwat Piyaskulkaew; Joseph T Nguyen; K Daniel Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Benjamin De Leener; Vladimir S Fonov; D Louis Collins; Virginie Callot; Nikola Stikov; Julien Cohen-Adad Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-10-21 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Allan R Martin; Izabela Aleksanderek; Julien Cohen-Adad; Zenovia Tarmohamed; Lindsay Tetreault; Nathaniel Smith; David W Cadotte; Adrian Crawley; Howard Ginsberg; David J Mikulis; Michael G Fehlings Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: James S Harrop; Swetha Naroji; Mitchell Maltenfort; D Greg Anderson; Todd Albert; John K Ratliff; Ravi K Ponnappan; Jeffery A Rihn; Harvey E Smith; Alan Hilibrand; Ashwini D Sharan; Alexander Vaccaro Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Benjamin S Hopkins; Kenneth A Weber; Michael Brendan Cloney; Monica Paliwal; Todd B Parrish; Zachary A Smith Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 3.241