European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 713–721 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine: comparison of 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo, 2D T2*weighted gradient-recalled echo and 3D T2-weighted variable flip-angle turbo spin echo sequences

  • T. Meindl
  • S. Wirth
  • S. Weckbach
  • O. Dietrich
  • M. Reiser
  • S. O. Schoenberg


To compare an isotropic three-dimensional (3D) high-resolution T2-weighted (w) MR sequence and its reformations with conventional sequences for imaging of the cervical spine. Fifteen volunteers were examined at 1.5 T using sagittal and axial 3D T2-w, sagittal and axial 2D T2w, and axial 2D T2*w MR sequences. Axial reformations of the sagittal 3D dataset were generated (3D MPR T2w). Signal-to-noise and image homogeneity were evaluated in a phantom and in vivo. Visibility of ten anatomical structures of the cervical spine was evaluated. Artifacts were assessed. For statistical analysis, Cohen’s kappa, Wilcoxon matched pairs, and t-testing were utilized. There were no significant differences in homogeneity between the sequences. Sagittal 3D T2w enabled better delineation of nerve roots, neural foramina, and intraforaminal structures compared to sagittal 2D T2w. Axial 3D T2w and axial 3D MPR T2w resulted in superior visibility of most anatomical structures compared to axial 2D T2w and comparable results to 2D T2*w concerning the spinal cord, nerve roots, intraforaminal structures, and fat. Artifacts were most pronounced in axial 2D T2w and axial 3D T2w. Acquisition of a 3D T2w data set is feasible in the cervical spine with superior delineation of anatomical structures compared to 2D sequences.


3D MRI Cervical spine T2w SPACE 


  1. 1.
    Boutin RD, Steinbach LS, Finnesey K (2000) MR imaging of degenerative diseases in the cervical spine. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 8:471–490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Isoda H, Ramsey RG (1998) MR imaging of acute transverse myelitis (myelopathy). Radiat Med 16:179–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruiz A, Post MJ, Sklar EM et al (2000) MR imaging of infections of the cervical spine. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 8:561–580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee RR (2000) MR imaging of intradural tumors of the cervical spine. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 8:529–540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sevick RJ, Wallace CJ (1999) MR imaging of neoplasms of the lumbar spine. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 7:539–553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pattany PM, Saraf-Lavi E, Bowen BC (2003) MR angiography of the spine and spinal cord. Top Magn Reson Imaging 14:444–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katzberg RW, Benedetti PF, Drake CM et al (1999) Acute cervical spine injuries: prospective MR imaging assessment at a level 1 trauma center. Radiology 213:203–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mirvis SE, Shanmuganathan K (1995) Trauma radiology: part V. Imaging of acute cervical spine trauma. J Intensive Care Med 10:15–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Melhem ER (2000) Technical challenges in MR imaging of the cervical spine and cord. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 8:435–452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Runge VM, Wood ML, Kaufman DM et al (1988) The straight and narrow path to good head and spine MRI. Radiographics 8:507–531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolansky LJ, Parikh DD, Shah KJ et al (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for cervical disc disease: what is your neighbour up to? J Neuroimaging 15:183–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Glaser C, Dietrich O et al (2007) MR imaging of the cervical spine: assessment of image quality with parallel imaging compared to non-accelerated MR measurements. Eur Radiol 17(5):1147–1155, Epub 2006 Oct 27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramli N, Cooper A, Jaspan T (2001) High resolution CISS imaging of the spine. Br J Radiol 74:862–873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lichy MP, Wietek BM, Mugler JP et al (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the body trunk using a single-slab, 3-dimensional, T2-weighted turbo-spin-echo sequence with high sampling efficiency (SPACE) for high spatial resolution imaging: initial clinical experiences. Invest Radiol 40:754–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mugler JP, Bao S, Mulkern RV et al (2000) Optimized single-slab three-dimensional spin-echo MR imaging of the brain. Radiology 216:891–899PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB et al (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(2):375–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li T, Mirowitz SA (2002) Comparative study of fast MR imaging: quantitative analysis on image quality and efficiency among various time frames and contrast behaviors. Magn Reson Imaging 20(6):471–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wicks DA, Barker GJ, Tofts PS (1993) Correction of intensity nonuniformity in MR images of any orientation. Magn Reson Imaging 11(2):183–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Georgy BA, Hesselink JR (1994) MR imaging of the spine: recent advances in pulse sequences and special techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162:923–934PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Czervionke LF, Daniels DL, Wehrli FW et al (1988) Magnetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 9:1149–1155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsuruda JS, Remley K (1991) Effects of magnetic susceptibility artifacts and motion in evaluating the cervical neural foramina on 3DFT gradient-echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 12:237–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freund M, Sartor K (2006) Degenerative spine disorders in the context of clinical findings. Eur J Radiol 58(1):15–26, Epub 2006 Jan 24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hayes CW, Jensen ME, Conway WF (1989) Non-neoplastic lesions of vertebral bodies: findings in magnetic resonance imaging. Radiographics 9:883–903PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller DH, Grossman RI, Reingold SC et al (1998) The role of magnetic resonance techniques in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis. Brain 121(Pt 1):3–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsuchiya K, Katase S, Aoki C et al (2003) Application of multi-detector row helical scanning to postmyelographic CT. Eur Radiol 13(6):1438–1443, Epub 2002 Nov 19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dorenbeck U, Schreyer AG, Schlaier J et al (2004) 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. Neuroradiology 46(4):306–309, Epub 2004 Mar 19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Held P, Seitz J, Frund 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(1):64–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Meindl
    • 1
  • S. Wirth
    • 1
  • S. Weckbach
    • 3
  • O. Dietrich
    • 2
  • M. Reiser
    • 2
  • S. O. Schoenberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospitals MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospitals MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospital Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-University of HeidelbergMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations