Abstract
Abstract
Background
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an effective imaging tool for diagnosing spinal disorders. With a high degree of sensitivity and specificity, it gives vital information on the spinal cord, nerve roots, intervertebral discs, and ligamentous structures inside the spine. Dynamic MRI may image patients in flexed and extended postures, showing abnormalities undetected by static MRI studies. It allows for a more complete investigation of each patient and a better knowledge of the real nature of the pathology. Imaging the spine in extension and flexion, or putting the spine in pain, may help spine surgeons improve their diagnostic accuracy. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of flexion–extension sagittal T2 (Dynamic MRI) for patients with cervical spondylodegenerative diseases.
Results
We found that more spinal canal stenosis levels were detected on extension position MRI compared to a neutral position (128 vs. 133 MUHLE classification system grade 0, 38 vs. 63 MUHLE grade 1, 31 vs. 13 MUHLE grade 2, 13 vs. 1 MUHLE grade 3), which was statistically significant according to MUHLE among total disc levels, with p value < 0.05. While more spinal canal stenosis levels were detected on flexion position MRI than in neutral position (134 vs. 133 MUHLE grade 0, 49 vs. 63 MUHLE grade 1, 23 vs. 13 MUHLE grade 2, 4 vs. 1 MUHLE grade 3), which was statistically insignificant according to MUHLE among total disc levels (p value > 0.05).
Conclusions
Flexion and extension MR imaging demonstrates additional information using a non-invasive technique concerning the dynamic factors in the pathogenesis of cervical spondylodegenerative diseases. DMRI identifies a significant percentage of increased spinal stenosis especially at extension position more than at neutral and flexion positions. So, we recommend to include extension DMRI in investigations for diagnosis and management plans of cervical spondylodegenerative diseases.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference15 articles.
1. Lao L-F, Zhong G-B, Li Q-y, Liu Z-d (2014) Kinetic magnetic resonance imaging analysis of spinal degeneration: a systematic review. Orthop Surg 6(4):294–299
2. Ha JH, Lee J-H, Lee JH (2021) Coexisting spine lesions on whole spine T2 sagittal MRI in evaluating spinal degenerative disease. J Korean Med Sci 36(7):e48
3. Hayashi T, Daubs MD, Suzuki A, Phan K, Shiba K, Wang JC (2014) Effect of Modic changes on spinal canal stenosis and segmental motion in cervical spine. Eur Spine J 23:1737–1742
4. Muhle C, Metzner J, Weinert D, Falliner A, Brinkmann G, Mehdorn MH et al (1998) Classification system based on kinematic MR imaging in cervical spondylitic myelopathy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 19:1763–1771
5. Alkosha HMA, El Adalany MA, Elsobky H, Zidan AS, Sabry A, Awad BI (2022) Flexion/extension cervical magnetic resonance imaging: a potentially useful tool for decision-making in patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical spine. World Neurosurg 164:e1078–e1086