Jarruwat Charoensuk1, Jiraporn Laothamatas2, Witaya Sungkarat3, Ladawan Worapruekjaru4, Boonthida Hooncharoen5, Khaisang Chousangsuntorn6. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, 328967King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences Technology, 507421HRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Science, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Department of Radiology and Advanced Diagnostic Imaging Center, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, 26685Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, 26685Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 5. Advanced Diagnostic Imaging Center (AIMC), Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, 26685Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 6. Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Medical Technology, 26685Mahidol University, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no studies comparing the morphologic changes of lumbar spines between supine axial-loaded and 90° standing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of patients with spinal stenosis. PURPOSE: To determine whether axial-loaded MRI using a compression device demonstrated similar morphology of intervertebral disc, dural sac, and spinal curvature as those detected by 90° standing MRI in individuals with suspected spinal stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 54 individuals suspected of having spinal stenosis underwent both axial-loaded and standing MRI studies. The outcome measures included seven radiologic parameters of the lumbar spine: measures of the intervertebral disc (i.e. cross-sectional area [DA], disc height [DH], and anteroposterior distance [DAP]), dural sac (cross-sectional area [DCSA]), spinal curvature (i.e. lumbar lordosis [LL] and L1-L3-L5 angle [LA]), and total lumbar spine height (LH). RESULTS: For agreement between the two methods, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ≥ 0.8 was found for all seven radiologic parameters. Supine axial-loaded MRI underestimated LL but remained correlated (ICC = 0.83) with standing MRI. Minor differences between the two methods (≤5.0%) were observed in DA, DCSA, DAP, LA, and LH, while a major difference was observed in LL (8.1%). CONCLUSION: Using a compression device with the conventional supine MRI to simulate weight-bearing on the lumbar spine generated MRI morphology, which was strongly correlated with those from a standing MRI.
BACKGROUND: There are no studies comparing the morphologic changes of lumbar spines between supine axial-loaded and 90° standing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of patients with spinal stenosis. PURPOSE: To determine whether axial-loaded MRI using a compression device demonstrated similar morphology of intervertebral disc, dural sac, and spinal curvature as those detected by 90° standing MRI in individuals with suspected spinal stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 54 individuals suspected of having spinal stenosis underwent both axial-loaded and standing MRI studies. The outcome measures included seven radiologic parameters of the lumbar spine: measures of the intervertebral disc (i.e. cross-sectional area [DA], disc height [DH], and anteroposterior distance [DAP]), dural sac (cross-sectional area [DCSA]), spinal curvature (i.e. lumbar lordosis [LL] and L1-L3-L5 angle [LA]), and total lumbar spine height (LH). RESULTS: For agreement between the two methods, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ≥ 0.8 was found for all seven radiologic parameters. Supine axial-loaded MRI underestimated LL but remained correlated (ICC = 0.83) with standing MRI. Minor differences between the two methods (≤5.0%) were observed in DA, DCSA, DAP, LA, and LH, while a major difference was observed in LL (8.1%). CONCLUSION: Using a compression device with the conventional supine MRI to simulate weight-bearing on the lumbar spine generated MRI morphology, which was strongly correlated with those from a standing MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Axial loading; low back pain; lumbar lordosis lumbosacral spinal compression; neurogenic claudication; upright magnetic resonance imaging