Skip to main content

Stellenwert von Myelographie, Myelo-CT und MRT in der Diagnostik der zervikalen Radikulo- und Myelopathie

Imaging cervical myelo- and radiculopathy

Der Radiologe volume 46, pages 993–1000 (2006)Cite this article

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Diese Arbeit zieht einen Vergleich zwischen zervikaler Myelographie, CT-Myelographie (CTM) und MRT. Es gilt herauszufinden, welchen Stellenwert jede der oben genannten Methoden in Bezug auf Diagnostik und nachfolgende Therapie hat.

Material und Methoden

Bei insgesamt 25 Patienten mit klinischem Verdacht auf eine zervikale Myelo- oder Radikulopathie wurden sowohl eine MRT-Untersuchung der Halswirbelsäule als auch eine Myelographie durchgeführt.

Ergebnisse

Eine Einengung des Spinalkanals ließ sich sowohl in der CTM als auch MRT darstellen. Bezüglich des Ausmaßes der Spinalkanaleinengung bestand zwischen den T1w-axialen Bildern und den Postmyelo-CT-Bildern kein signifikanter Unterschied.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die MRT ist in der Diagnostik von Myelo- und Radikulopathien der CTM ebenbürtig. Die CT ist zwar in der Differenzierung von weicher und knöcherner Protrusion besser, jedoch bietet die MRT v. a. wegen ihrer fehlenden Invasivität und fehlenden Strahlenbelastung einen entscheidenden Vorteil.

Abstract

Purpose

This article gives an overview of the diagnostic possibilities available in the diagnosis of cervical myelo- and radiculopathy. We compared conventional myelography, CTM, and MRI.

Material and methods

Twenty-five patients with clinical evidence of cervical myelo- or radiculopathy were included. Sagittal and transverse T1-weighted (T1w) TSE and T2-weighted (T2w) TSE sequences were compared with myelography and CTM. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon’s -test.

Results

Disc herniation could be depicted in CTM as well as in MRI. The extent of herniation did not differ between CTM and T1w. The extent of herniation seemed higher on T2w than on T1w (p <0.001). Foraminal encroachment was easier to diagnose in CTM. When regarding transverse T1w and T2w images simultaneously, a missing root in MRI corresponded to a missing root in CTM and conventional myelography and vice versa. Our data demonstrated the relative inability of MRI to determine whether the compression is by soft tissue or bony structures.

Conclusion

The present study proposes that MRI, when available, should be the imaging method of first choice in patients with suspected radiculo- and myelopathy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3a,b
Abb. 4a-c
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Boyce RH, Wang JC (2003) Evaluation of neck pain, radiculopathy, and myelopathy: imaging, conservative treatment, and surgical indications. Instr Course Lect 52:489–495

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown BM, Schwartz RH (1988) Preoperative evaluation of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy by surface-coil MR-imaging. AJR 151:1205–1212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown BM, Schwartz RH, Frank E, Blank NK (1988) Preoperative evaluation of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy by surface-coil-MR-imaging. AJNR 9:859–866

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chevrot A, Drape J, Godefroy D, Dupont A (2003) Imaging of the painful cervical spine. J Radiol 84:181–239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Daniels DL, Grogan JP (1984) Cervical radiculopathy: computed tomography and myelography compared. Radiology 151:109–113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dorenbeck U, Schreyer AG, Grunwald IQ, Held P, Feuerbach S, Seitz J (2004) Degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. Comparison of the multiecho data image combination sequence with magnetization transfer saturation pulse versus lumbar myelography/postmyelographic computed tomography. Acta Radiol 45(8):866–873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fenzl G, Bauer M, Seiderer M, Lanksch W, Einhäupl U (1985) MR bei spinalen Raumforderungen. Kongreßband Internationales MR-Symposium Garmisch-Partenkirchen 1985. Schnetztor, Konstanz

  8. Fenzl G, Heywang SH, Vogl T, Obermüller J, Einhäupl K, Clados D, Steinhoff H (1986) Die Magnetresonanztomographie der Wirbelsäule und des Rückenmarks im Vergleich zu Computertomographie und Myelographie. Fortschr Röntgenstr 144(6):636–643

    Google Scholar 

  9. Haughton VM (1988) MR-imaging of the spine. Radiology 166:27–301

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 30:83–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 38:64–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Modic MT, Weinstein MA, Pavlicek W et al. (1983) Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine; technical and clinical observations. AJR 141:1129–1136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Modic MT, Masaryk TJ, Mulopulos GP, Bundschuh C, Han JS, Bohlman H (1986) Cervical radiculopathy: postpective evaluation with surface coil MR-imaging, CT with metrizamide and metrizamide myelography. Radiology 161:753–759

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Modic NT, Pavlicek W, Weinstein NA, Boumphrey F et al. (1984) Magnetic resonance imaging of intervertebral disk disease. Clinical and pulse sequence considerations. Radiology 152:103–111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schubeus P, Sander B, Hosten N, Mayer H-M, Weber U, Felix R (1994) MRT bei degenerativen Wirbelsäulenerkrankungen. Acta Radiol 4:12–15

    Google Scholar 

  16. Richmond BJ, Ghodadra T (2003) Imaging of spinal stenosis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am 14(1):41–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Russel EJ (1999) Cervical disc disease. Radiology 177:313–325

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schochat T, Jackel WH (1998) Prevalence of low back pain in the population. Rehabilitation 37(4):216–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Statham PF, Hadley P, Macpherson RA Johnston I, Bone GM (1991) MRI in the management of suspected cervical spondylotic myelopathie. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 54:484–489

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilson DW, Pezzuti RT, Place JN (1991) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of cervical radiculography. Neurosurgery 28:175–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt:

Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Abteilung Neuroradiologie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes Homburg

    C. Roth, P. Papanagiotou, C. Krick, W. Reith &  I. Q. Grunwald

  2. Abteilung Neuroradiologie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, 66426 , Homburg

    I. Q. Grunwald

Authors
  1. C. Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Papanagiotou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Krick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Reith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I. Q. Grunwald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Q. Grunwald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roth, C., Papanagiotou, P., Krick, C. et al. Stellenwert von Myelographie, Myelo-CT und MRT in der Diagnostik der zervikalen Radikulo- und Myelopathie. Radiologe 46, 993–1000 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-005-1251-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-005-1251-9

Schlüsselwörter

  • Vergleich
  • Myelographie
  • Zervikal
  • MRT
  • CT-Myelo

Keywords

  • Comparison
  • Myelography
  • Cervical
  • MRI
  • CT myelo