Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can recumbent magnetic resonance imaging replace myelography or computed tomography myelography for detecting lumbar spinal stenosis?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare the diagnostic efficacy of recumbent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography myelography (CTM), and myelography, with regard to indications for surgery for lumbar stenosis.

Background data

In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis-like disorders, small compressions are sometimes observed in magnetic resonance images acquired in the recumbent position, leading to potential misdiagnosis. Few prospective studies have compared the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, myelography, and CTM. Therefore, it is not clear whether myelography is necessary or not.

Methods

Fifty-four patients fulfilled the criteria. All patients underwent MRI, myelography, and CTM. MRI was performed with the patient in a normal recumbent position, and CTM was performed with the patients in both a recumbent and extended positions. All patients underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Findings from visual examinations (sagittal images of MR, axial images of MR, axial reconstruction images of CTM and myelograms) were defined as compression + or −. We analyzed the sensitivity of the different examinations for diagnosis and the relationship among the types of images.

Results

Sensitivity was as follows: CTM 94.4 %, myelography 87.0 %, and MRI 75.9 %. In myelography, the images of 37 patients were worsened by dynamic synthesis (Dyn+). Among patients without compression on MRI, 11 showed compression on myelography. Of these 11, 8 of these patients were Dyn+, and 2 patients showed compression on myelography, but not on CTM and were Dyn+. Thus, some compression can be revealed only with myelography. CTM was more sensitive than axial MRI and showed compression in 12 patients that was not detected by axial MRI.

Conclusion

Myelography revealed stenosis that was not detected by MRI. CTM with extension is more sensitive for detecting stenosis than MRI. Recumbent MRI cannot replace myelography or CTM in terms of dynamic findings and sensitivity.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verbiest H (1976) Fallacies of the present definition, nomenclature, and classification of the stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal. Spine 1:217–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cauchoix J, Crock HV, Dommisse GF, Edgar MA, Gargano FP, Jacobson RE, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Kurihara A, Langenskiöld A, Macnab I, McIvor GW, Newman PH, Paine KW, Russin LA, Sheldon J, Tile M, Urist MR, Wilson WE, Wiltse LL (1976) Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes: definition and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 115:4–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hasue M, Kikuchi S, Sakuyama Y, Ito T (1983) Anatomic study of the interrelation between lumbrosacral nerve roots and their surrounding tissues. Spine 10:50–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bolender NF, Schoonstrom NSR, Spengler DM (1985) Role of computed tomography and myelography in the diagnosis of central spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67A:240–245

    Google Scholar 

  5. Maravilla KR, Hartling RP (1988) Imaging decisions in degenerative spinal disease: a practical approach. MRI Decis 2:2–13

    Google Scholar 

  6. VanDyke C, Ross JS, Tkach J, Masaryk TJ, Modic MT (1989) Gradient-echo MR imaging of the cervical spine: evaluation of extradural disease. Am J Roentgenol 153:393–398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Williams AL, Haughton VM, Pojunas KW, Daniels DL, Kilgore DP (1987) Differentiation of intramedullary neoplasms and cysts by MR. Am J Roentgenol 149:159–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jinkins JR, Dworkin JS, Damadian RV (2005) Upright, weight-bearing, dynamic-kinematic MRI of the spine: initial results. Eur Radiol 15:1815–1825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Elsig JPJ, Kaech DL (2007) Dynamic imaging of spine with an open upright MRI: present results and future perspectives of fMRI. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 17:119–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Modic MT, Masaryk T, Boumphrey F, Goormastic M, Bell G (1986) Lumbar herniated disc disease and canal stenosis: prospective evaluation by surface coil MR, CT and myelography. Am J Roentgenol 147:757–765

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Saint-Louis LA (2001) Lumbar spinal stenosis assessment with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and myelography. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:122–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith FW, Kulik G (2010) Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine 35(21):1919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Macnab I (1971) Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 53:891–903

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Willén J, Wessberg PJ, Danielsson B (2008) Surgical results in hidden lumbar spinal stenosis detected by axial loaded computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: an outcome study. Spine 33:E109–E115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Margaret HP, Yousuf AH (2000) Value of magnet resonance myelography in the diagnosis of herniation and spinal stenosis. Australas Radiol 44:281–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hansson T, Suzuki N, Hebelka H, Gaulitz A (2009) The narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal during loaded MRI: the effects of the disc and ligamentum flavum. Eur Spine J 18:679–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Willen J, Danielson B, Gaulitz A, Niklason T, Schönström N, Hansson T (1997) Dynamic effects on lumbar spinal canal. Axially loaded CT-Myelography and MRI in patients with sciatica and/or neurogenic claudication. Spine 22:2968–2976

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Iwata T, Miyamoto K, Hioki A, Ohashi M, Inoue N, Shimizu K (2013) In vivo measurement of lumbar foramen during axial loading using a compression device and computed tomography. J Spinal Disord Tech (in press) (PMID:23381186)

  19. Hiwatashi A, Danielson B, Moritani T, Bakos RS, Rodenhause TG, Pilcher WH, Westesson PL (2004) Axial loading during MR imaging can influence treatment decision for symptomatic spinal stenosis. Am J Neuroradiol 25:170–174

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanno H, Endo T, Ozawa H, Koizumi Y, Morozumi N, Itoi E, Ishii Y (2012) Axial loading during magnetic resonance imaging in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis: does it reproduce the positional change of the dural sac detected by upright myelography? Spine 37:E985–E992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gilbert JW, Martin JC, Wheeler GR, Storey BB, Mick GE, Richardson GB, Herder SL, Gyarteng-Dakwa K (2011) Lumbar stenosis rates in symptomatic patients using weight-bearing and recumbent magnetic resonance imaging. J Manip Physiol Ther 34:557–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eguchi Y, Ohtori S, Yamashita M, Yamauchi K, Suzuki M, Orita S, Kamoda H, Arai G, Ishikawa T, Miyagi M (2010) Clinical applications of diffusion magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar foraminal nerve root entrapment. Eur Spine J 19(11):1874–1882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Niigata Spine Surgery Center, 2-5-22, Nishimachi, Konan-ku, Niigata-shi, Niigata-ken, Niigata, Japan

    Kanji Sasaki, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Haruka Shimoda, Ishii Keiji & Takao Homma

  2. Seirei Hamamatsu Hospital, 2-12-12, Sumiyoshi, Naka-ku, Hamamatsu-shi, Shizuoka-ken, Hamamatsu, Japan

    Kanji Sasaki

Authors
  1. Kanji Sasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazuhiro Hasegawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haruka Shimoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ishii Keiji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takao Homma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kanji Sasaki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sasaki, K., Hasegawa, K., Shimoda, H. et al. Can recumbent magnetic resonance imaging replace myelography or computed tomography myelography for detecting lumbar spinal stenosis?. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23 (Suppl 1), 77–83 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1209-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1209-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation