Comparison of L1-S1 neuroforaminal dimensions derived from plain film radiography versus computed tomography.
CT
Computed tomography
Neural foramen
Neuroforamina
Plain film radiography
Journal
European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
ISSN: 1432-0932
Titre abrégé: Eur Spine J
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9301980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Nov 2023
04 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
08
04
2023
accepted:
14
10
2023
revised:
05
09
2023
medline:
5
11
2023
pubmed:
5
11
2023
entrez:
5
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To compare measurements of lumbar neuroforaminal dimensions (NFD) derived from plain film radiography (PFR) and computed tomography (CT) of young patients without spinal pathology. We analyzed 213 patients between 18 and 35 years of age without spinal pathology who received PFR and CT within one year of each other. NFD were defined as foraminal height, sagittal anterior-to-posterior width, and area. Statistical analyses assessed correlations and differences between PFR- and CT-derived NFD measurements. 111 subjects were female and 102 were male. Significant differences between PFR- and CT-derived NFD measurements were observed for all levels L1-S1, with those for foraminal height listed as follows: 4.10 mm at L1-L2, 1.58 mm at L2-L3, 3.23 mm at L3-L4, 4.27 mm at L4-L5, and 1.75 mm at L5-S1. Regarding foraminal area, these differences were 72.20, 73.45, 61.80, 35.38, and 16.18 mm This study describes 9585 measurements from L1-S1 of neuroforaminal measurements derived from CT and plain film radiography from a sample of young patients without spinal pathology. Among these patients, plain film measurements of the neuroforamina are larger compared to those derived from CT for all levels from L1-S1. There is poor correlation and reliability between plain film and CT measurements of neuroforaminal dimensions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37925378
doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-08005-8
pii: 10.1007/s00586-023-08005-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J (2011) Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-175 . (LumbSten Research Collaboration)
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-175
pubmed: 21798008
pmcid: 3161920
Jenis LG, An HS (2000) Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis Spine 25(3):389–394. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200002010-00022
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200002010-00022
pubmed: 10703115
Choi YK (2019) Lumbar foraminal neuropathy: an update on non-surgical management. Korean J Pain 32(3):147–159. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2019.32.3.147
doi: 10.3344/kjp.2019.32.3.147
pubmed: 31257823
pmcid: 6615450
Kalichman L, Cole R, Kim DH et al (2009) Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham study. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 9(7):545–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.005
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.005
Lee S, Lee JW, Yeom JS et al (2010) A practical MRI grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(4):1095–1098. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2772
doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.2772
pubmed: 20308517
Anonymous et al. *Details omitted for double-blind review*
Karaikovic EE, Daubs MD, Madsen RW, Gaines RWJ (1997) Morphologic characteristics of human cervical pedicles. Spine 22(5):493
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199703010-00005
pubmed: 9076880
Singh K, Samartzis D, Vaccaro AR et al (2005) Congenital lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective, control-matched, cohort radiographic analysis. Spine J 5(6):615–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.05.385
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.05.385
pubmed: 16291100
Hazra A, Gogtay N (2016) Biostatistics series module 3: comparing groups: numerical variables. Indian J Dermatol 61(3):251–260. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182416
doi: 10.4103/0019-5154.182416
pubmed: 27293244
pmcid: 4885176
Akoglu H (2018) User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 18(3):91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
pubmed: 30191186
pmcid: 6107969
Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA (2018) Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126(5):1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
pubmed: 29481436
Razzouk J, Ramos O, Ouro-Rodrigues E et al (2022) Comparison of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebral bone quality scores for increased utility of bone mineral density screening. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07484-5
doi: 10.1007/s00586-022-07484-5
pubmed: 36509887
Lee CM, Liu RW (2022) Comparison of pelvic incidence measurement using lateral x-ray, standard ct versus ct with 3d reconstruction. Eur Spine J 31(2):241–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07024-7
doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-07024-7
pubmed: 34743245
Bono CM, Vaccaro AR, Fehlings M et al (2007) Measurement techniques for upper cervical spine injuries: consensus statement of the spine trauma study group. Spine 32(5):593. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000257345.21075.a7
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000257345.21075.a7
pubmed: 17334296
Sieradzki JP, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, Lazarus ML (2008) Preoperative imaging of cervical pedicles: comparison of accuracy of oblique radiographs versus axial CT scans. Eur Spine J 17(9):1230–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0725-7
doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0725-7
pubmed: 18661159
pmcid: 2527419
Lee SE, Lee WK, Kim DS et al (2010) Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. World J Urol 28(3):263–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0511-0
doi: 10.1007/s00345-010-0511-0
pubmed: 20119641
Choi SM, Choi DK, Kim TH et al (2015) A comparison of radiologic tumor volume and pathologic tumor volume in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PLoS ONE 10(3):e0122019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122019
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122019
pubmed: 25799553
pmcid: 4370411
Chen W, Wang L, Yang Q, Liu B, Sun Y (2013) Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. Int Braz J 39(2):189–194. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.02.06
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.02.06
Marchant MH, Willimon SC, Vinson E, Pietrobon R, Garrett WE, Higgins LD (2010) Comparison of plain radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(8):1059–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0952-4
doi: 10.1007/s00167-009-0952-4
pubmed: 19953224
Ito MM, Tanaka S (2006) Evaluation of tibial bone-tunnel changes with X-ray and computed tomography after ACL reconstruction using a bone-patella tendon-bone autograft. Int Orthop 30(2):99–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0078-y
doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0078-y
pubmed: 16506024
pmcid: 2532076
Hoser C, Tecklenburg K, Kuenzel KH, Fink C (2005) Postoperative evaluation of femoral tunnel position in ACL reconstruction: plain radiography versus computed tomography. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 13(4):256–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-004-0548-y
doi: 10.1007/s00167-004-0548-y
Wang HJ, YFAo, LXChen et al (2013) Measurement of bone tunnel width with computed tomography versus plain radiography after anterior cruciate ligament single-bundle reconstruction. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 93(41):3288–3290
pubmed: 24401625
Senol U, Cubuk M, Sindel M et al (2001) Anteroposterior diameter of the vertebral canal in cervical region: comparison of anatomical, computed tomographic, and plain film measurements. Clin Anat 14(1):15–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2353(200101)14:1%3c15::AID-CA1002%3e3.0.CO;2-X
doi: 10.1002/1098-2353(200101)14:1<15::AID-CA1002>3.0.CO;2-X
pubmed: 11135392