Publication: Lumbosacral spinal compression device with the use of a cushion back support in supine MRI
dc.contributor.author | Witaya Sungkarat | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Jiraporn Laothamatas | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ladawan Worapruekjaru | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Boonthida Hooncharoen | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Jarruwat Charoensuk | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Khaisang Chousangsuntorn | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | HRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Science | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-10-05T05:12:57Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-10-05T05:12:57Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-01-01 | 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.identifier.citation | Acta Radiologica. (2020) | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/0284185120951963 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 16000455 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 02841851 | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | 2-s2.0-85089962446 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/59105 | |
dc.rights | Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | SCOPUS | en_US |
dc.source.uri | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089962446&origin=inward | en_US |
dc.subject | Health Professions | en_US |
dc.subject | Medicine | en_US |
dc.title | Lumbosacral spinal compression device with the use of a cushion back support in supine MRI | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
mu.datasource.scopus | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089962446&origin=inward | en_US |