Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWitaya Sungkaraten_US
dc.contributor.authorJiraporn Laothamatasen_US
dc.contributor.authorLadawan Worapruekjaruen_US
dc.contributor.authorBoonthida Hooncharoenen_US
dc.contributor.authorJarruwat Charoensuken_US
dc.contributor.authorKhaisang Chousangsuntornen_US
dc.contributor.otherKing Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabangen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherHRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.citationActa Radiologica. (2020)en_US
dc.description.abstract© The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2020. Background: We hypothesized that axial-loaded magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), modified with the use of a cushion placed behind the lower back (i.e. BS-MRI method), would simulate the standing position more accurately than an axial-loaded MRI without a cushion back support (BS). Purpose: To determine whether the BS-MRI method demonstrated similar morphologies on intervertebral disc (IVD), dural sac, and spinal curvature as those detected on 90° standing MRIs in individuals with suspected spinal stenosis. Material and Methods: Twenty-five subjects underwent a BS-MRI, as well as axial-loaded and standing MRI studies. Outcome measures were four radiographic parameters of the lumbar spine: IVD height (DH); dural sac cross-sectional area (DCSA); and spinal curvature (i.e. lumbar lordosis [LL] and L1-L3-L5 angle [LA]). Results: Major differences (>5%) between standing MRI and BS-MRI methods were observed in DCSA, DH, and LL. Major differences between standing and axial loaded MRIs were observed only in DCSA and LA. Although BS-MRIs demonstrate an image of the lumbar spine curvature (i.e. LA) which is closer to that when standing than axial-loaded MRIs, it is likely to overestimate both narrowing of dural sac and extent of LL. Conclusion: Using a compression device with a BS to simulate weight-bearing on the lumbar spine is not recommended due to: (i) overestimation of the narrowing of the dural sac and extent of LL; and (ii) underestimation of loss of disc height. Supine axial-loading produced DCSA and DH which were strongly correlated with those detected with standing MRIs. Exceptions were that LL and LA were underestimated.en_US
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.subjectHealth Professionsen_US
dc.titleLumbosacral spinal compression device with the use of a cushion back support in supine MRIen_US
Appears in Collections:Scopus 2020

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.