Advertisement

Neuroradiology

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 306–309 | Cite as

Degenerative diseases of the cervical spine: comparison of a multiecho data image combination sequence with a magnetisation transfer saturation pulse and cervical myelography and CT

  • U. DorenbeckEmail author
  • A. G. Schreyer
  • J. Schlaier
  • P. Held
  • S. Feuerbach
  • J. Seitz
Diagnostic Neuroradiology

Abstract

Assessing degenerative disease in the cervical spine remains a challenge. There is much controversy about imaging the cervical spine using MRI. Our aim in this prospective study was to compare a T2*-weighted 2D spoiled gradient-echo multiecho sequence (MEDIC) with a magnetisation transfer saturation pulse with cervical myelography and postmyelographic CT. Using an assessment scale we looked at the vertebral bodies, intervertebral discs, neural foramina, anterior and posterior nerve roots, grey matter, ligamenta flava, oedema in the spinal cord and stenosis of the spinal canal. We also evaluated postmyelography CT and the MEDIC sequence for assessing narrowing of the neural foramina in a cadaver cervical spine. We examined 67 disc levels in 18 patients, showing 18 disc prolapses and 21 osteophytes narrowing the spinal canal or the neural foramina. All MRI studies showed these abnormalities findings equally well. Postmyelography CT was significantly better for showing the bony structures and the anterior and posterior nerve roots. The MEDIC sequence provided excellent demonstration of soft-tissue structures such as the intervertebral disc and ligamentum flavum. No statistical differences between the imaging modalities were found in the assessment of narrowing of the neural foramina or the extent of spinal stenosis. The cadaver measurements showed no overestimation of abnormalities using the MEDIC sequence.

Keywords

Cervical spondylosis Magnetic resonance imaging Pulse sequences Magnetisation transfer Computed tomography Myelography 

References

  1. 1.
    Yousem DM, Atlas SW, Hackney DB (1992) Cervical spine disk herniation: comparison of CT and 3 DFT gradient echo MR scans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16: 345–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Held P, Seitz J, Fründ R, et al (2001) Comparison of two-dimensional gradient echo, turbo spin echo and two-dimensional turbo gradient spin echo sequences in MRI of the cervical spinal cord anatomy. Eur J Radiol 38: 64–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Held P, Dorenbeck U, Seitz J, Fründ R, Albrich H (2003) MRI of the abnormal cervical spinal cord using 2D spoiled gradient echo multiecho sequence (Medic) with magnetization transfer saturation pulse. J Neuroradiol 30: 83–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilliams AR, Soto JA, CarterA P (1997) Fast spin echo vs conventional spin echo in cervical spine imaging. Eur Radiol 7: 1211–1214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsuruda JS, Remley K (1990) Effects of magnetic susceptibility artifacts and motion in evaluating the cervical neural foramina on 3DFT gradient–echo MR imaging. AJNR 12: 237–241Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reul J, Gievers B, Weils J, Thron A (1995) Assessment of the narrow cervical spinal canal: a prospective comparison of MRI, myelography and CT-myelography. Neuroradiology 37: 187–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Melhem ER, Benson ML, Beauchamp NJ, Lee RR (1996) Cervical spondylosis: three-dimensional gradient-echo MR with magnetization transfer. AJNR 17: 705–711Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yousem DM, Atlas SW, Goldberg HI, Grossmann RI (1990) Degenerative narrowing of the cervical spine neural foramina: evaluation with high-resolution 3DFT gradient-echo MR Imaging. AJNR 12: 229–236Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tien RD, Buxton RB, Schwaighofer BW, Chu PK (1991) Quantitation of structural distortion of the cervical neural foramina in gradient-echo MR imaging. JMRI 1: 683–687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Czervionke LF, Daniels DL, Wehrli FW, et al (1988) Magnetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. AJNR 9: 1149–1155Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grossman RI, Gomori JM, Ramer KN, Lexa FJ, Schnall MD (1994) Magnetization transfer: theory and clinical applications in neuroradiology. RadioGraphics 14: 279–290PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Dorenbeck
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • A. G. Schreyer
    • 2
  • J. Schlaier
    • 3
  • P. Held
    • 2
  • S. Feuerbach
    • 2
  • J. Seitz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyUniversity Hospital of the SaarlandHomburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyUniversity Hospital of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations