Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Correction (v208,p834)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wildermuth, S.
Right arrow Articles by Hodler, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wildermuth, S.
Right arrow Articles by Hodler, J.

Radiology, Vol 207, 391-398, Copyright © 1998 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Lumbar spine: quantitative and qualitative assessment of positional (upright flexion and extension) MR imaging and myelography [published erratum appears in Radiology 1998 Sep;208(3):834]

S Wildermuth, M Zanetti, S Duewell, MR Schmid, B Romanowski, A Benini, T Boni and J Hodler
Department of Radiology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.

PURPOSE: To compare measurements of the sagittal diameter of the lumbar dural sac obtained at positional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and at functional myelography and to assess the influence of various body positions on the dural sac and the intervertebral foramina. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients referred for lumbar myelography were examined with an open 0.5-T MR imager, Sagittal T2- weighted fast spin-echo images were acquired with patients in the supine, upright flexion, and upright extension positions. The midsagittal diameter of the dural sac was measured at the level of the disks on MR images and myelograms. Foraminal sizes on the MR images were scored independently by two observers. RESULTS: Correlation between MR imaging and myelographic measurements was high (r = .81- .97). A small but statistically significant positional dependence of the dural sac diameter was found in the lower lumbar spine. Position- dependent differences in foraminal scores were uncommon. CONCLUSION: Quantitative assessment of sagittal dural sac diameters is comparable between lumbar myelography and positional MR imaging. In a selected patient population, only small changes in the sagittal diameter of the dural sac and foraminal size can be expected between various body positions, and the information gained in addition to that from standard MR imaging is limited [corrected].


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
A. Leone, G. Guglielmi, V. N. Cassar-Pullicino, and L. Bonomo
Lumbar Intervertebral Instability: A Review
Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 62 - 77.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
Y. Yukawa, L. G. Lenke, J. Tenhula, K. H. Bridwell, K. D. Riew, and K. Blanke
A Comprehensive Study of Patients with Surgically Treated Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 12, 2002; 84(11): 1954 - 1959.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. Weishaupt, M. R. Schmid, M. Zanetti, N. Boos, B. Romanowski, R. O. Kissling, J. Dvorak, and J. Hodler
Positional MR Imaging of the Lumbar Spine: Does It Demonstrate Nerve Root Compromise Not Visible at Conventional MR Imaging?
Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 247 - 253.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1998 by the Radiological Society of North America.