nach oben

Erschienen in:

04.11.2023 | Original Article

Comparison of L1-S1 neuroforaminal dimensions derived from plain film radiography versus computed tomography

verfasst von: Jacob Razzouk, Davis Carter, Mei Carter, Ethan Vyhmeister, Whitney Kagabo, Omar Ramos, Clifford Douglas, Nathaniel Wycliffe, Wayne Cheng, Olumide Danisa

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare measurements of lumbar neuroforaminal dimensions (NFD) derived from plain film radiography (PFR) and computed tomography (CT) of young patients without spinal pathology.

Methods

We analyzed 213 patients between 18 and 35 years of age without spinal pathology who received PFR and CT within one year of each other. NFD were defined as foraminal height, sagittal anterior-to-posterior width, and area. Statistical analyses assessed correlations and differences between PFR- and CT-derived NFD measurements.

Results

111 subjects were female and 102 were male. Significant differences between PFR- and CT-derived NFD measurements were observed for all levels L1-S1, with those for foraminal height listed as follows: 4.10 mm at L1-L2, 1.58 mm at L2-L3, 3.23 mm at L3-L4, 4.27 mm at L4-L5, and 1.75 mm at L5-S1. Regarding foraminal area, these differences were 72.20, 73.45, 61.80, 35.38, and 16.18 mm², respectively. PFR-derived measurements of NFD were larger compared to those derived from CT across all levels (p < .001). Only weak (0 ≤ r ≤ .4) or moderate (.4 ≤ r ≤ .7) correlations were observed between PFR- and CT-derived NFD measurements for all levels from L1-S1.

Conclusion

This study describes 9585 measurements from L1-S1 of neuroforaminal measurements derived from CT and plain film radiography from a sample of young patients without spinal pathology. Among these patients, plain film measurements of the neuroforamina are larger compared to those derived from CT for all levels from L1-S1. There is poor correlation and reliability between plain film and CT measurements of neuroforaminal dimensions.

Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J (2011) Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-175. (LumbSten Research Collaboration)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jenis LG, An HS (2000) Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis Spine 25(3):389–394. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200002010-00022CrossRefPubMed

Choi YK (2019) Lumbar foraminal neuropathy: an update on non-surgical management. Korean J Pain 32(3):147–159. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2019.32.3.147MathSciNetCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kalichman L, Cole R, Kim DH et al (2009) Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham study. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 9(7):545–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.005CrossRef

Lee S, Lee JW, Yeom JS et al (2010) A practical MRI grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(4):1095–1098. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2772CrossRefPubMed

Anonymous et al. *Details omitted for double-blind review*

Karaikovic EE, Daubs MD, Madsen RW, Gaines RWJ (1997) Morphologic characteristics of human cervical pedicles. Spine 22(5):493CrossRefPubMed

Singh K, Samartzis D, Vaccaro AR et al (2005) Congenital lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective, control-matched, cohort radiographic analysis. Spine J 5(6):615–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.05.385CrossRefPubMed

Hazra A, Gogtay N (2016) Biostatistics series module 3: comparing groups: numerical variables. Indian J Dermatol 61(3):251–260. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Akoglu H (2018) User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 18(3):91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA (2018) Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126(5):1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864CrossRefPubMed

12.

Razzouk J, Ramos O, Ouro-Rodrigues E et al (2022) Comparison of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebral bone quality scores for increased utility of bone mineral density screening. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07484-5CrossRefPubMed

13.

Lee CM, Liu RW (2022) Comparison of pelvic incidence measurement using lateral x-ray, standard ct versus ct with 3d reconstruction. Eur Spine J 31(2):241–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07024-7CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bono CM, Vaccaro AR, Fehlings M et al (2007) Measurement techniques for upper cervical spine injuries: consensus statement of the spine trauma study group. Spine 32(5):593. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000257345.21075.a7CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sieradzki JP, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, Lazarus ML (2008) Preoperative imaging of cervical pedicles: comparison of accuracy of oblique radiographs versus axial CT scans. Eur Spine J 17(9):1230–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0725-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lee SE, Lee WK, Kim DS et al (2010) Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. World J Urol 28(3):263–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0511-0CrossRefPubMed

17.

Choi SM, Choi DK, Kim TH et al (2015) A comparison of radiologic tumor volume and pathologic tumor volume in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PLoS ONE 10(3):e0122019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122019CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Chen W, Wang L, Yang Q, Liu B, Sun Y (2013) Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. Int Braz J 39(2):189–194. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.02.06CrossRef

19.

Marchant MH, Willimon SC, Vinson E, Pietrobon R, Garrett WE, Higgins LD (2010) Comparison of plain radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(8):1059–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0952-4CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ito MM, Tanaka S (2006) Evaluation of tibial bone-tunnel changes with X-ray and computed tomography after ACL reconstruction using a bone-patella tendon-bone autograft. Int Orthop 30(2):99–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0078-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Hoser C, Tecklenburg K, Kuenzel KH, Fink C (2005) Postoperative evaluation of femoral tunnel position in ACL reconstruction: plain radiography versus computed tomography. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 13(4):256–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-004-0548-yCrossRef

22.

Wang HJ, YFAo, LXChen et al (2013) Measurement of bone tunnel width with computed tomography versus plain radiography after anterior cruciate ligament single-bundle reconstruction. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 93(41):3288–3290PubMed

23.

Senol U, Cubuk M, Sindel M et al (2001) Anteroposterior diameter of the vertebral canal in cervical region: comparison of anatomical, computed tomographic, and plain film measurements. Clin Anat 14(1):15–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2353(200101)14:1%3c15::AID-CA1002%3e3.0.CO;2-XCrossRefPubMed

Titel: Comparison of L1-S1 neuroforaminal dimensions derived from plain film radiography versus computed tomography
verfasst von: Jacob Razzouk
Davis Carter
Mei Carter
Ethan Vyhmeister
Whitney Kagabo
Omar Ramos
Clifford Douglas
Nathaniel Wycliffe
Wayne Cheng
Olumide Danisa
Publikationsdatum: 04.11.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-08005-8

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Comparison of L1-S1 neuroforaminal dimensions derived from plain film radiography versus computed tomography