Publication: Lumbosacral spinal compression device with the use of a cushion back support in supine MRI
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
16000455
02841851
02841851
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85089962446
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Acta Radiologica. (2020)
Suggested Citation
Witaya Sungkarat, Jiraporn Laothamatas, Ladawan Worapruekjaru, Boonthida Hooncharoen, Jarruwat Charoensuk, Khaisang Chousangsuntorn Lumbosacral spinal compression device with the use of a cushion back support in supine MRI. Acta Radiologica. (2020). doi:10.1177/0284185120951963 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/59105
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Lumbosacral spinal compression device with the use of a cushion back support in supine MRI
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.