Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomogram-myelography for evaluation of cross sections of cervical spinal morphology

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 50-56

  Naganawa, Toshitaka ^a,b   Miyamoto, Kei ^a   Ogura, Hiroyasu ^a   Suzuki, Naoki ^a,b   Shimizu, Katsuji ^a  

^a GIFU UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b Hashima City Hospital   (Japan)

Author keywords

cervical spinal canal stenosis; computed tomography; CTM; diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; myelography; reproducibility; spinal cord

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; DURA MATER; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MORPHOLOGY; MYELOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; VERTEBRAL CANAL; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS;

CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DURA MATER; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; JAPAN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL CORD; SPINAL STENOSIS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 78751585036     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cb469c     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Young DA, Burney RE II. Complication of myelography-transection and withdrawal of a nerve filament by the needle. N Engl J Med 1971;285:156-7.
2. Abla AA, Rothfus WE, Maroon JC, et al. Delayed spinal subarachnoid hematoma: a rare complication of C1-C2 cervical myelography. Am J Neuroradiol 1986;7:526-8.
3. Kotilainen E, Sonninen P, Kotilainen P. Spondylodiscitis: an unusual complication after lumbar myelography. Joint Bone Spine 2007;74:113-4.
4. Drew R, Bhandari M, Kulkarni AV, et al. Reliability in grading the severity of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 2000;13:253-8.
5. Bischoff RJ, Rodriguez RP, Gupta K, et al. A comparison of computed tomography-myelography, magnetic resonance imaging, and myelography in the diagnosis of herniated nucleus pulposus and spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 1993;6:289-95.
6. Reul J, Gievers B, Weis J, et al. Assessment of the narrow cervical spinal canal: a prospective comparison of MRI, myelography and CTmyelography. Neuroradiology 1995;37:187-91.
7. Kretzschmar K. Degenerative diseases of the spine. The role of myelography and myelo-CT. Eur J Radiol 1998;27:229-34.
8. Houser OW, Onofrio BM, Miller GM, et al. Cervical spondylotic stenosis and myelopathy: evaluation with computed tomographic myelography. Mayo Clin Proc 1994;69:557-63.
9. Dorenbeck U, Schreyer AG, Schlaier J, et al. Degenerative diseases of the cervical spine: comparison of a multiecho data image combination sequence with a magnetisation transfer saturation pulse and cervical myelography and CT. Neuroradiology 2004;46:306-9. (Pubitemid 38594255)
10. Yousem DM, Atlas SW, Hackney DB. Cervical spine disk herniation: comparison of CT and 3DFT gradient echo MR scans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992;16:345-51.
11. Stafira JS, Sonnad JR, Yuh WT, et al. Qualitative assessment of cervical spinal stenosis: observer variability on CT and MR images. Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:766-9.
12. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307- 10
14. Moon ES, Kim HS, Park JO, et al. Comparison of the predictive value of myelography, computed tomography and MRI on the treadmill test in lumbar spinal stenosis. Yonsei Med J 2005;46:806-11.