Jun Yang1, Zhiyun Feng2, Nian Chen1, Zhenhua Hong3, Yongyu Zheng1, Jiang Yang1, Tingjie Zhou1, Xin Yao1, Taifeng Xu1, Linting Zhang4. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sanmen People's Hospital, Taizhou, China. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. fengzhiyun@zju.edu.cn. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital, Taizhou, China. 4. Operating room, Sanmen People's Hospital, Taizhou, China. 2337825016@qq.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of gravity in the sedimentation of lumbar spine nerve roots using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of various body positions. METHODS: A total of 56 patients, who suffered from back pain and underwent conventional supine lumbar spine MR imaging, were selected from sanmen hospital database. All the patients were called back to our hospital to perform MR imaging in prone position or lateral position. Furthermore, the sedimentation sign (SedSign) was determined based on the suspension of the nerve roots in the dural sac on cross-sectional MR images, and 31 cases were rated as positive and another 25 cases were negative. RESULTS: The mean age of negative SedSign group was significantly younger than that of positive SedSign group (51.7 ± 8.7 vs 68.4 ± 10.5, P < 0.05). The constitutions of clinical diagnosis were significantly different between patients with a positive SedSign and those with a negative SedSign (P < 0.001). Overall, nerve roots of the vast majority of patients (48/56, 85.7%) subsided to the ventral side of the dural sac on the prone MR images, although that of 8 (14.3%) patients remain stay in the dorsal side of dural sac. Nerve roots of only one patient with negative SedSign did not settle to the ventral dural sac, while this phenomenon occurred in 7 patients in positive SedSign group (4% vs 22.6%, P < 0.001). In addition, the nerve roots of all the five patients subsided to the left side of dural sac on lateral position MR images. CONCLUSIONS: The nerve roots sedimentation followed the direction of gravity. Positive SedSign may be a MR sign of lumbar pathology involved the spinal canal.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of gravity in the sedimentation of lumbar spine nerve roots using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of various body positions. METHODS: A total of 56 patients, who suffered from back pain and underwent conventional supine lumbar spine MR imaging, were selected from sanmen hospital database. All the patients were called back to our hospital to perform MR imaging in prone position or lateral position. Furthermore, the sedimentation sign (SedSign) was determined based on the suspension of the nerve roots in the dural sac on cross-sectional MR images, and 31 cases were rated as positive and another 25 cases were negative. RESULTS: The mean age of negative SedSign group was significantly younger than that of positive SedSign group (51.7 ± 8.7 vs 68.4 ± 10.5, P < 0.05). The constitutions of clinical diagnosis were significantly different between patients with a positive SedSign and those with a negative SedSign (P < 0.001). Overall, nerve roots of the vast majority of patients (48/56, 85.7%) subsided to the ventral side of the dural sac on the prone MR images, although that of 8 (14.3%) patients remain stay in the dorsal side of dural sac. Nerve roots of only one patient with negative SedSign did not settle to the ventral dural sac, while this phenomenon occurred in 7 patients in positive SedSign group (4% vs 22.6%, P < 0.001). In addition, the nerve roots of all the five patients subsided to the left side of dural sac on lateral position MR images. CONCLUSIONS: The nerve roots sedimentation followed the direction of gravity. Positive SedSign may be a MR sign of lumbar pathology involved the spinal canal.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gravity; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Nerve roots sedimentation sign; Prone position magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Thomas Barz; Lukas P Staub; Markus Melloh; Gregor Hamann; Sarah J Lord; Mark D Chatfield; Patrick M Bossuyt; Joern Lange; Harry R Merk Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Thomas Barz; Markus Melloh; Lukas P Staub; Sarah J Lord; Jörn Lange; Christoph P Röder; Jean-Claude Theis; Harry R Merk Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christian Jaeger Cook; Chad E Cook; Michael P Reiman; Anand B Joshi; William Richardson; Alessandra N Garcia Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Christy C Tomkins-Lane; Douglas J Quint; Shaun Gabriel; Markus Melloh; Andrew J Haig Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468