Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of L1-S1 neuroforaminal dimensions derived from plain film radiography versus computed tomography

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare measurements of lumbar neuroforaminal dimensions (NFD) derived from plain film radiography (PFR) and computed tomography (CT) of young patients without spinal pathology.

Methods

We analyzed 213 patients between 18 and 35 years of age without spinal pathology who received PFR and CT within one year of each other. NFD were defined as foraminal height, sagittal anterior-to-posterior width, and area. Statistical analyses assessed correlations and differences between PFR- and CT-derived NFD measurements.

Results

111 subjects were female and 102 were male. Significant differences between PFR- and CT-derived NFD measurements were observed for all levels L1-S1, with those for foraminal height listed as follows: 4.10 mm at L1-L2, 1.58 mm at L2-L3, 3.23 mm at L3-L4, 4.27 mm at L4-L5, and 1.75 mm at L5-S1. Regarding foraminal area, these differences were 72.20, 73.45, 61.80, 35.38, and 16.18 mm2, respectively. PFR-derived measurements of NFD were larger compared to those derived from CT across all levels (p < .001). Only weak (0 ≤ r ≤ .4) or moderate (.4 ≤ r ≤ .7) correlations were observed between PFR- and CT-derived NFD measurements for all levels from L1-S1.

Conclusion

This study describes 9585 measurements from L1-S1 of neuroforaminal measurements derived from CT and plain film radiography from a sample of young patients without spinal pathology. Among these patients, plain film measurements of the neuroforamina are larger compared to those derived from CT for all levels from L1-S1. There is poor correlation and reliability between plain film and CT measurements of neuroforaminal dimensions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J (2011) Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-175. (LumbSten Research Collaboration)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jenis LG, An HS (2000) Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis Spine 25(3):389–394. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200002010-00022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Choi YK (2019) Lumbar foraminal neuropathy: an update on non-surgical management. Korean J Pain 32(3):147–159. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2019.32.3.147

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kalichman L, Cole R, Kim DH et al (2009) Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham study. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 9(7):545–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee S, Lee JW, Yeom JS et al (2010) A practical MRI grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(4):1095–1098. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Anonymous et al. *Details omitted for double-blind review*

  7. Karaikovic EE, Daubs MD, Madsen RW, Gaines RWJ (1997) Morphologic characteristics of human cervical pedicles. Spine 22(5):493

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Singh K, Samartzis D, Vaccaro AR et al (2005) Congenital lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective, control-matched, cohort radiographic analysis. Spine J 5(6):615–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.05.385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hazra A, Gogtay N (2016) Biostatistics series module 3: comparing groups: numerical variables. Indian J Dermatol 61(3):251–260. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182416

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Akoglu H (2018) User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 18(3):91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA (2018) Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126(5):1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Razzouk J, Ramos O, Ouro-Rodrigues E et al (2022) Comparison of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebral bone quality scores for increased utility of bone mineral density screening. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07484-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee CM, Liu RW (2022) Comparison of pelvic incidence measurement using lateral x-ray, standard ct versus ct with 3d reconstruction. Eur Spine J 31(2):241–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07024-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bono CM, Vaccaro AR, Fehlings M et al (2007) Measurement techniques for upper cervical spine injuries: consensus statement of the spine trauma study group. Spine 32(5):593. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000257345.21075.a7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sieradzki JP, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, Lazarus ML (2008) Preoperative imaging of cervical pedicles: comparison of accuracy of oblique radiographs versus axial CT scans. Eur Spine J 17(9):1230–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0725-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee SE, Lee WK, Kim DS et al (2010) Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. World J Urol 28(3):263–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0511-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi SM, Choi DK, Kim TH et al (2015) A comparison of radiologic tumor volume and pathologic tumor volume in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PLoS ONE 10(3):e0122019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen W, Wang L, Yang Q, Liu B, Sun Y (2013) Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. Int Braz J 39(2):189–194. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.02.06

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Marchant MH, Willimon SC, Vinson E, Pietrobon R, Garrett WE, Higgins LD (2010) Comparison of plain radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(8):1059–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0952-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ito MM, Tanaka S (2006) Evaluation of tibial bone-tunnel changes with X-ray and computed tomography after ACL reconstruction using a bone-patella tendon-bone autograft. Int Orthop 30(2):99–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0078-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoser C, Tecklenburg K, Kuenzel KH, Fink C (2005) Postoperative evaluation of femoral tunnel position in ACL reconstruction: plain radiography versus computed tomography. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 13(4):256–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-004-0548-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang HJ, YFAo, LXChen et al (2013) Measurement of bone tunnel width with computed tomography versus plain radiography after anterior cruciate ligament single-bundle reconstruction. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 93(41):3288–3290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Senol U, Cubuk M, Sindel M et al (2001) Anteroposterior diameter of the vertebral canal in cervical region: comparison of anatomical, computed tomographic, and plain film measurements. Clin Anat 14(1):15–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2353(200101)14:1%3c15::AID-CA1002%3e3.0.CO;2-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA

    Jacob Razzouk, Davis Carter, Mei Carter & Ethan Vyhmeister

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Whitney Kagabo

  3. Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Omar Ramos

  4. Department of Neurological Surgery, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA

    Clifford Douglas

  5. Department of Radiology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA

    Nathaniel Wycliffe

  6. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jerry L. Pettis VA Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA

    Wayne Cheng

  7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Loma Linda University Health, 25805 Barton Road A106, Loma Linda, CA, 92354, USA

    Olumide Danisa

Authors
  1. Jacob Razzouk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Davis Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mei Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ethan Vyhmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Whitney Kagabo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Omar Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Clifford Douglas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nathaniel Wycliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wayne Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Olumide Danisa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olumide Danisa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Razzouk, J., Carter, D., Carter, M. et al. Comparison of L1-S1 neuroforaminal dimensions derived from plain film radiography versus computed tomography. Eur Spine J 33, 93–102 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-08005-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-08005-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation