Change in Neural Tube Size for a Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patient on Axial Loading Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Ho Yeon Jeong; Tae Kyun Kim; Dae Ho Ha; Dae Moo Shim; Young Ha Woo; Min Su Joo; Bong Jun Jang; Saintpée Kim

doi:10.4055/jkoa.2016.51.6.473

Journal List > J Korean Orthop Assoc > v.51(6) > 1013483

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jeong, Kim, Ha, Shim, Woo, Joo, Jang, and Kim: Change in Neural Tube Size for a Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patient on Axial Loading Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Original Article

Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association 2016; 51(6): 473-478.

Published online: 30 December 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2016.51.6.473

Change in Neural Tube Size for a Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patient on Axial Loading Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Ho Yeon Jeong, M.D., Tae Kyun Kim, M.D.^*, Dae Ho Ha, M.D., Dae Moo Shim, M.D.^*, Young Ha Woo, M.D.^*, Min Su Joo, M.D.^*, Bong Jun Jang, M.D.^*, Saintpée Kim, M.D.^*

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo, Korea.

^*Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea.

Correspondence to: Tae Kyun Kim, M.D. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, 460 Iksan-daero, Iksan 54538, Korea. TEL: +82-63-859-1360, FAX: +82-63-852-9329, osktg@wonkwang.ac.kr

Received 24 October 2015 Revised 28 February 2016 Accepted 21 June 2016

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

A conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted in supine position, showing a slight different from that conducted in upright position. Therefore, we simulated the upright position by applying the axial load on a lumbar spinal stenosis patient and measured the change of neural tube size in axial load and standardized the data.

Materials and Methods

We compared the axial loading MRI obtained from spinal stenosis patients who visited Wonkwang University Hospital outpatient clinic between October 2010 and May 2011 showing radiologic and physical symptoms.

Results

Neural tube sizes by conventional MRI were as follows: 195.57 mm² and 203.20 mm² on average between the left and right sides in L3/4; 194.64 mm² and 211.43 mm² on average in L4/5; and 199.38 mm² and 203.04 mm² on average in L5/S1. Neural tube sizes by axial loading MRI were as follows: 166.43 mm² and 174.27 mm² on average between the left and right sides in L3/4; 154.81 mm² and 158.67 mm² on average in L4/5; and 148.48 mm² and 157.19 mm² on average in L5/S1. Changes of neural tube sizes in L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 had a significant correlation (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The axial loading device was an excellent tool in simulating the upright position for spinal stenosis patients, and the change of neural tube sizes reproduced for the upright position was statistically significant. This is thought to be meaningful for clinical applicability.

Keywords: neural tube size, magnetic resonance imaging, spinal stenosis

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Non-magnetic axial compression device (Dynawell® L-spine; Dynawell, Las Vegas, NV, USA).

Figure 2

Magnetic resonance imaging machine (Phillips, Amsterdam, Netherlands).

Figure 3

Distance measured from each intervertebral space. A, anterior height; B, posterior height.

Figure 4

Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (A) and axial loading MRI (B) at L1-L5 lumbar spine lordotic angle.

Figure 5

Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (A) and axial loading MRI (B).

Notes

This paper was supported by Wonkwang University in 2016.

^{CONFLICTS OF INTEREST} The authors have nothing to disclose.

References

1. Rho YW, Song JE, Byun CS, Shin KS. Spinal stenosis. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 1985; 20:1037–1044.

2. Jinkins JR, Dworkin JS, Damadian RV. Upright, weight-bearing, dynamic-kinetic MRI of the spine: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15:1815–1825.

3. Huang KY, Lin RM, Lee YL, Li JD. Factors affecting disability and physical function in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4-5: evaluation with axially loaded MRI. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18:1851–1857.

4. Haughton VM. MR imaging of the spine. Radiology. 1988; 166:297–301.

5. Masaryk TJ, Ross JS, Modic MT, Boumphrey F, Bohlman H, Wilber G. High-resolution MR imaging of sequestered lumbar intervertebral disks. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988; 150:1155–1162.

6. Modic MT, Pavlicek W, Weinstein MA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of intervertebral disk disease. Clinical and pulse sequence considerations. Radiology. 1984; 152:103–111.

7. Epstein JA, Epstein BS, Lavin L. Nerve rot compression associated with narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1962; 25:165–176.

8. Winston K, Rumbaugh C, Colucci V. The vertebral canals in lumbar disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984; 9:414–417.

9. Dora C, Wälchli B, Elfering A, Gal I, Weishaupt D, Boos N. The significance of spinal canal dimensions in discriminating symptomatic from asymptomatic disc herniations. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11:575–581.

10. Elsberg CA, Dyke CG. Diagnosis and localization of tumors of spinal cord by means of measurements made on X-ray films of vertebrae and the correlation of clinical and X-ray findings. Bull Neurol Inst NY. 1934; 3:359–375.

11. Verbiest H. A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1954; 36:230–237.

12. Gill GG, White H. Mechanisms of nerve-root compression and irritation in backache; surgical decompression in intervertebral disk conditions; spondylolisthesis, spina bifida occulta and transitional fifth lumbar vertebra. Clin Orthop. 1955; 5:66–81.

13. Porter RW, Wicks M, Ottewell D. Measurement of the spinal canal by diagnostic ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1978; 60:481–484.

14. Kimura S, Steinbach GC, Watenpaugh DE, Hargens AR. Lumbar spine disc height and curvature responses to an axial load generated by a compression device compatible with magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26:2596–2600.

15. Lee SU, Hargens AR, Fredericson M, Lang PK. Lumbar spine disc heights and curvature: upright posture vs. supine compression harness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2003; 74:512–516.

TOOLS

Similar articles