| Literature DB >> 33406921 |
Yoshihiro Matsumoto1, Hirokazu Saiwai1, Keiichiro Iida1, Seiji Okada1, Makoto Endo1, Nokitaka Setsu1, Toshifumi Fujiwara1, Kenichi Kawaguchi1, Yasuharu Nakashima1.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Keywords: compression; intramural extra medullary spinal tumor; magnetic resonance imaging; myelopathy; surgical outcome
Year: 2021 PMID: 33406921 PMCID: PMC9393986 DOI: 10.1177/2192568220982571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Global Spine J ISSN: 2192-5682
Figure 1.Calculation of shape factor: 2 representative cases. Spinal cord was manually demarcated (dotted line), and cross-sectional transverse area (CSA) and perimeter of the spinal cord were measured with the SYNAPSE5 software (FUJIFILM). SF was calculated as 4π × CSA/(perimeter)2. Case 1: meningioma at T2; Case 2: hemangioma at T8.
Figure 2.Histogram distribution of CSA, perimeter and SF. Histograms of CSA, perimeter, and SF are shown. Test for the goodness of fit to the normal distribution (overlay curve) revealed that perimeter (p = 0.22) and SF (p = 0.38), but not CSA (p = 0.0018), fit the normal distribution.
Figure 3.Correlation of CSA and perimeter with SF. CSA and SF were slightly correlated (r = 0.32), whereas perimeter and SF were not correlated (r = 0.003)
Figure 4.Association of CSA, perimeter, and SF with neurological recovery after surgery for IDEMT. Group UF had a significantly lower mean CSA (22.7 ± 4.7 mm2) and SF (0.27 ± 0.04 mm) than group F (CSA: 29.5 ± 2.8 mm2; SF: 0.42 ± 0.02 mm) (p = 0.037 and 0.0012, respectively). However, the perimeter did not significantly differ between group UF and group F. UF: unfavorable; F: favorable, *: p < 0.05; n.s: not significant.
Predictive Factors for Unfavorable Outcome After Surgery for IDEMT.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive factors | p-value | Odds ratio | 95%CI | p-value |
| Age | 0.0298 | 0.95 (1 year lower) | 0.89–1.01 | 0.0839 |
| Preoperative mJOA score | 0.0375 | 1.18 (1 point lower) | 0.80–1.86 | 0.409 |
| T2 high signal | 0.718 | |||
| Ventral/ventrolateral location | 0.119 | |||
| Perimeter | 0.252 | |||
| CSA | 0.187 | |||
| Shape factor | 0.0006 | 2.66 (0.1 lower) | 1.10–6.39 | 0.0115 |
Figure 5.ROC curve analysis of shape factor for predicting postoperative favorable outcome. The optimum cut-off point (arrow) based on ROC curve analysis for SF was 0.29.