Preoperative evaluation of the cervical spondylotic myelopathy with flexion-extension magnetic resonance imaging: About a prospective study of fifty patients

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 17, 2011, Pages

  Zhang, Lei ^a   Zeitoun, Delphine ^b   Rangel, Alfonso ^b   Lazennec, Jean Yves ^b   Catonné, Yves ^b   Pascal Moussellard, Hugues ^b  

^a Orthopeadic Department   (China)

^b PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Cervical spondylosis; Dynamic pathology; fl exion extension; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; pre operative evaluation; spinal cord evaluation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINAL CORD DISEASE;

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPONDYLOSIS;

EID: 80051551323     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f822c7     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Guidetti B, Fortunna A. Long-term results of surgical treatment of myelopathy due to cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg 1969;30: 714-21.
2. Olsson SE. The dynamic factor in spinal cord compression: a study on dogs with special reference to cervical disc protrusion. J Neuro-surg 1958;15:308-21.
3. Chen IH, Vasavada A, Panjabi MM. Kinematics of the spondy-litic spine canal: changes with sagittal plane loads. J Spinal Disord 1994;7:93-101. (Pubitemid 24114755)
4. Muhle C, Weinert D, Falliner A, et al. Dynamic changes of the spi-nal canal in patients with cervical spondylosis at fl exion and ex-tension using magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1998;33: 444-9. (Pubitemid 30253673)
5. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, et al. Applying clinical trial re-sults: part A\how to use an article measuring the effect of an inter-vention on surrogate end points. JAMA 1999;282:771-8. (Pubitemid 29404385)
6. Turnbull IM, Brieg A, Hassler O. Blood supply of cervical spinal cord in man. A microangiographic cadaver study. J Neurosurg 1966;24(6):951-65.
7. Batzdorf U, Flannigan BD. Surgical decompressive procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a study using magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 1991;16:123-7.
8. Muhle C, Wiskirechen J, Weinert D, et al. Biomechanical aspects of the subarachnoid space and cervical cord in healthy individuals exam-ined with kinematic resonance imaging. Spine 1998;23(5):556-67. (Pubitemid 28154969)
9. Chritopher RT, Paul SM, Cris SC. Measurement of cervical spinal cord cross sectional area by MRI using edge detection and partial volume correction. J Magnetic Resonance Imaging 21:197-203.
10. Yanase M, Matsuyama Y, Hirose K, et al. Measurement of the cervical spinal cord Volume on MRI. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19: 125-9. (Pubitemid 44284158)
11. Kuwazawa Y, Pope MH, Bashir W, et al. The length of the cervical cord: effects of postural changes in healthy volunteers using posi-tional magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 2006;31(17):579-83.
12. Benatar M. Clinical equipoise and treatment decisions in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Can J Neurol Sci 2007;34(1):47-52. (Pubitemid 46423341)
13. Shi Z, Jia L, Yu K, et al. Clinical signifi cance of early diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 1998;36(12):717-20; Chinese.
14. Goto S, Mochizuki M, Kita T, et al. Anterior surgery in four con-secutive technical phases for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 1993;18(14):1968-73. (Pubitemid 23315899)
15. Baron EM, Young WF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a brief review of its pathophysiology, clinical course, and diagnosis. Neu-rosurgery 2007;60(1 supp 11):S35-41; Review.
16. Young WF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in older persons. Am Fam Phys 2000;62(5): 1064-70, 1073; Review.
17. Erratum in Am Fam Physician 2001;63(10): 1916.
18. Denno JJ, Meadows GR. Early diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A useful clinical sign. Spine 1991;16(12):1353-5.
19. Muhle C, Wiskirchen J, Brinkmann G, et al. Kinematic MRI in degenerative cervical spine changes (abstract in English). Fortschr Rontgenstr 1995;163:148-54.
20. Tierney RT, Maldjian C, Mattacola CG, et al. Cervical spine steno-sis measures in normal subjects. J Athl Train 2002;37(2):190-3. (Pubitemid 34693419)
21. Tierney RT, Mattacola CG, Sitler MR, et al. Head position and football equipment infl uence cervical spinal-cord space during im-mobilization. J Athl Train 2002;37(2):185-9. (Pubitemid 34693418)
22. Fehlings MG, Skaf G. A review of the pathophysiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with insights for potential novel mechanisms drawn from traumatic spinal cord injury. Spine 1998;23:2730-7. (Pubitemid 29013985)
23. Breig A, Turnbull I, Hassler O. Effects of mechanical stresses on the spinal cord in cervical spondylosis. A study on fresh cadaver mate-rial. J Neurosurg 1966;25(1):45-56.
24. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972;95(1):87-100.
25. Holmes A, Han ZH, Dang GT, et al. Changes in cervical canal spinal volume during in vitro fl exion-extension. Spine 1996;21(11):1313-9. (Pubitemid 26169506)
26. Kadanka Z, Kerkovsky M, Bednarik J, et al. Cross-sectional trans-verse area and hyperintensities on magnetic resonance imaging in relation to the clinical picture in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2007;32(23):2573-7. (Pubitemid 350059484)
27. Yugue I, Shiba K, Uezaki N. Static and dynamic modifi cations of the cervical spine after laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2003;89(6):487-95; French. (Pubitemid 37288052)
28. Cusick JF, Yoganandan N, Pintar F, et al. Cervical spine injuries from high-velocity forces: a pathoanatomic and radiologic study. J Spinal Disord 1996;9(1):1-7. (Pubitemid 26127295)
29. Faiss JH, Schroth G, Grodd W, et al. Central spinal cord lesions in stenosis of the cervical canal. Neuroradiology 1990;32(2): 117-23. (Pubitemid 20171637)
30. Penning L, van der Zwaag P. Biomechanical aspects of spondylotic myelopathy. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1966;5:1090-103.
31. Wada E, Yonenobu K, Suzuki S, et al. Can intramedullary signal change on magnetic resonance imaging predict surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Spine 1999;24:455-62. (Pubitemid 29120137)
32. Suri A, Chabbra RP, Mehta VS, et al. Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondy-lotic myelopathy. Spine J 2003;3(1):33-45. (Pubitemid 38351771)
33. Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, et al. Correlation between op-erative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and MRI of the spinal cord. Spine 2001;26(11):1238-45. (Pubitemid 32520496)
34. Okada Y, Ikata T, Yamada H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging study on the results of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 1993;18(14):2024-9. (Pubitemid 23315907)
35. Seichi A, Takeshita K, Kawaguchi H, et al. Postoperative expansion of intramedullary high-intensity areas on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging after cervical laminoplasty. Spine 2004;29(13): 1478-82; discussion 1482. (Pubitemid 38879055)