Publication: Axial loading during supine MRI for improved assessment of lumbar spine: comparison with standing MRI
Issued Date
2021-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
16000455
02841851
02841851
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85122157014
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Acta Radiologica. (2021)
Suggested Citation
Jarruwat Charoensuk, Jiraporn Laothamatas, Witaya Sungkarat, Ladawan Worapruekjaru, Boonthida Hooncharoen, Khaisang Chousangsuntorn Axial loading during supine MRI for improved assessment of lumbar spine: comparison with standing MRI. Acta Radiologica. (2021). doi:10.1177/02841851211068148 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/77100
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Axial loading during supine MRI for improved assessment of lumbar spine: comparison with standing MRI
Abstract
Background: There are no studies comparing the morphologic changes of lumbar spines between supine axial-loaded and 90° standing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of patients with spinal stenosis. Purpose: To determine whether axial-loaded MRI using a compression device demonstrated similar morphology of intervertebral disc, dural sac, and spinal curvature as those detected by 90° standing MRI in individuals with suspected spinal stenosis. Material and Methods: A total of 54 individuals suspected of having spinal stenosis underwent both axial-loaded and standing MRI studies. The outcome measures included seven radiologic parameters of the lumbar spine: measures of the intervertebral disc (i.e. cross-sectional area [DA], disc height [DH], and anteroposterior distance [DAP]), dural sac (cross-sectional area [DCSA]), spinal curvature (i.e. lumbar lordosis [LL] and L1-L3-L5 angle [LA]), and total lumbar spine height (LH). Results: For agreement between the two methods, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ≥ 0.8 was found for all seven radiologic parameters. Supine axial-loaded MRI underestimated LL but remained correlated (ICC = 0.83) with standing MRI. Minor differences between the two methods (≤5.0%) were observed in DA, DCSA, DAP, LA, and LH, while a major difference was observed in LL (8.1%). Conclusion: Using a compression device with the conventional supine MRI to simulate weight-bearing on the lumbar spine generated MRI morphology, which was strongly correlated with those from a standing MRI.