Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2014; 75(04): 259-266
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368095
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Improved Magnetic Resonance Myelography of the Cervical Spine Using Image Fusion and Volumetry

Knut Eberhardt
1   MRI Center of Excellence, District Hospital Castle of Werneck, Germany
,
Oliver Ganslandt
2   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
,
Andreas Stadlbauer
2   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
3   Department of Radiology, Landesklinikum St. Poelten–MR Physics Group, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 May 2013

02 October 2013

Publication Date:
25 February 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and Aims Discrepancies between symptoms and imaging findings may be significant in spinal diseases. The relative advantages and disadvantages of postmyelographic CT (pmCT) and magnetic resonance myelography (MRM) in measuring cervical cerebrospinal fluid dimensions and volumes are poorly understood. This study investigated the usefulness of an improved MRM approach and compared its findings of dural areas and volumes of normal and pathologic cervical spine levels with those obtained by pmCT.

Materials and Method Sixty patients with suspected cervical spinal stenosis underwent myelography, pmCT, and an improved MRM approach using a dedicated heavily T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) sequence in combination with image fusion. Cross-sectional areas and volumes of the dural sac from C2–3 to C7–T1 were compared for significance of differences between mean values. Pearson correlations between pmCT and MRM values were analyzed. Then 99% confidence intervals for normal levels and levels with obvious stenosis were calculated.

Results For normal cervical levels we found no significant differences for both dural areas and volumes between pmCT and MRM. For cervical spine levels C3–4 to C6–7 with pathologic alterations, we found significant larger areas and volumes on MRM when compared with pmCT but not for the levels C2–3 and C7–T1. Both dural area and volume of normal and pathologic levels showed strong correlation between pmCT and MRM. We found no overlap between 99% confidence intervals for normal levels and stenotic levels.

Conclusions The optimized MRM approach (i.e., a dedicated MRM sequence in combination with image fusion) and pmCT demonstrated excellent quantitative volumetric agreement. Image fusion with conventional T2 may be used to aid in diagnosis.

Keywords

cervical spine - stenosis - postmyelographic CT - MR myelography - image fusion
 

  • References

  • 1 Miller GM, Krauss WE. Myelography: still the gold standard. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24 (3) 298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fortin J, Riethmiller DW, Vilensky JA. No clear winner in differing imaging modalities for cervical radiculopathy. Pain Physician 2002; 5 (3) 285-287
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Nakstad P. Myelographic findings in cervical spines without degenerative changes. Special reference to sagittal diameter of the dural sac. Neuroradiology 1987; 29 (3) 256-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sather MD, Gibson MD, Treves JS. Spinal subarachnoid hematoma resulting from lumbar myelography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28 (2) 220-221
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1990; 175 (3) 621-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Raininko R. The value of CT after total block on myelography. Experience with 25 patients. Rofo 1983; 138 (1) 61-65
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kampmann H, Schroedl P, Spranger M. Diagnosis of lumbar intervertebral disk prolapse by computed tomography. A comparative clinical study between myelographic, computed tomographic and the surgical research results with 158 patients [in German]. Rontgenblatter 1985; 38 (12) 387-391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hoeffner EG, Mukherji SK, Srinivasan A, Quint DJ. Neuroradiology back to the future: spine imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012; 33 (6) 999-1006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Janssen ME, Bertrand SL, Joe C, Levine MI. Lumbar herniated disk disease: comparison of MRI, myelography, and post-myelographic CT scan with surgical findings. Orthopedics 1994; 17 (2) 121-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Hirai T, Shigematu Y, Ushio Y, Takahashi M. Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted three-dimensional gradient-echo MR imaging of the whole spine for intradural tumor dissemination. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998; 19 (9) 1773-1779
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Freund M, Hutzelmann A, Steffens JC, Buhl R, Heller M. MR myelography in spinal canal stenosis [in German]. Rofo 1997; 167 (5) 474-478
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zou KH, Tuncali K, Silverman SG. Correlation and simple linear regression. Radiology 2003; 227 (3) 617-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ferrer P, Martí-Bonmatí L, Mollá E, Casillas C. Value of MR myelography in the diagnosis of the spine disorders [in Spanish]. Med Clin (Barc) 2000; 115 (10) 366-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bartlett RJ, Hill CA, Devlin R, Gardiner ED. Two-dimensional MRI at 1.5 and 0.5 T versus CT myelography in the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. Neuroradiology 1996; 38 (2) 142-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Melhem ER. Technical challenges in MR imaging of the cervical spine and cord. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2000; 8 (3) 435-452
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stafira JS, Sonnad JR, Yuh WT , et al. Qualitative assessment of cervical spinal stenosis: observer variability on CT and MR images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24 (4) 766-769
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wang YF, Lirng JF, Fuh JL, Hseu SS, Wang SJ. Heavily T2-weighted MR myelography vs CT myelography in spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Neurology 2009; 73 (22) 1892-1898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Birchall D, Connelly D, Walker L, Hall K. Evaluation of magnetic resonance myelography in the investigation of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Br J Radiol 2003; 76 (908) 525-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Shafaie FF, Wippold II FJ, Gado M, Pilgram TK, Riew KD. Comparison of computed tomography myelography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. Spine 1999; 24 (17) 1781-1785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Naganawa T, Miyamoto K, Ogura H, Suzuki N, Shimizu K. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomogram-myelography for evaluation of cross sections of cervical spinal morphology. Spine 2011; 36 (1) 50-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Song KJ, Choi BW, Kim GH, Kim JR. Clinical usefulness of CT-myelogram comparing with the MRI in degenerative cervical spinal disorders: is CTM still useful for primary diagnostic tool?. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22 (5) 353-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Reul J, Gievers B, Weis J, Thron A. Assessment of the narrow cervical spinal canal: a prospective comparison of MRI, myelography and CT-myelography. Neuroradiology 1995; 37 (3) 187-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maldjian C, Adam RJ, Akhtar N, Bonakdarpour A, Boyko OB. Volume fast spin-echo imaging of the cervical spine. Acad Radiol 1999; 6 (2) 84-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Maldjian C, Adam RJ, Akhtar N, Maldjian JA, Bonakdarpour A, Boyko O. Volume (three-dimensional) fast spin-echo imaging of the lumbar spine. Acad Radiol 1999; 6 (6) 339-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chiavassa H, Sans N, Galy-Fourcade D , et al. HASTE sequence and cine-MRI evaluation of the cervical spinal canal: evaluation in 11 healthy subjects [in French]. J Radiol 2000; 81 (6) 611-617
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Prasad SS, O'Malley M, Caplan M, Shackleford IM, Pydisetty RK. MRI measurements of the cervical spine and their correlation to Pavlov's ratio. Spine 2003; 28 (12) 1263-1268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Miyazaki M, Takita C, Yoshiiwa T, Itonaga I, Tsumura H. Morphological analysis of the cervical pedicles, lateral masses, and laminae in developmental canal stenosis. Spine 2010; 35 (24) E1381-E1385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dorenbeck U, Schreyer AG, Schlaier J, Held P, Feuerbach S, Seitz J. 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 2004; 46 (4) 306-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Eberhardt KE, Hollenbach HP, Tomandl B, Huk WJ. Three-dimensional MR myelography of the lumbar spine: comparative case study to X-ray myelography. Eur Radiol 1997; 7 (5) 737-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kaminsky J, Rodt T, Zajaczek J, Donnerstag F, Zumkeller M. Multisegmental image fusion of the spine [in German]. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2004; 49 (3) 49-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar