Cargando…

Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective radiological comparative design. PURPOSE: To investigate whether conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could substitute three-dimensional (3D)-MRI for the calculation of the foraminal stenotic ratio (FSR) and clarification of which patients can be assessed more ac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hasib, Maruf Mohammad, Yamada, Kentaro, Hoshino, Masatoshi, Yamada, Eiji, Tamai, Koji, Takahashi, Shinji, Suzuki, Akinobu, Toyoda, Hiromitsu, Terai, Hidetomi, Nakamura, Hiroaki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8377208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33059434
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0133
_version_ 1783740609617461248
author Hasib, Maruf Mohammad
Yamada, Kentaro
Hoshino, Masatoshi
Yamada, Eiji
Tamai, Koji
Takahashi, Shinji
Suzuki, Akinobu
Toyoda, Hiromitsu
Terai, Hidetomi
Nakamura, Hiroaki
author_facet Hasib, Maruf Mohammad
Yamada, Kentaro
Hoshino, Masatoshi
Yamada, Eiji
Tamai, Koji
Takahashi, Shinji
Suzuki, Akinobu
Toyoda, Hiromitsu
Terai, Hidetomi
Nakamura, Hiroaki
author_sort Hasib, Maruf Mohammad
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective radiological comparative design. PURPOSE: To investigate whether conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could substitute three-dimensional (3D)-MRI for the calculation of the foraminal stenotic ratio (FSR) and clarification of which patients can be assessed more accurately using 3D-MRI. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Previous studies have indicated that 3D-MRI is useful for diagnosing lumbar foraminal stenosis. The FSR obtained using 3D-MRI, described as the ratio of stenosis length, characterized by perineural fat obliteration, to the length of the entire foramen, could indicate the stenosis severity; however, this method is time-consuming and expensive. The FSR also can be calculated using conventional MRI. METHODS: We investigated 154 foramina at L5–S1 in 77 patients. All the patients had degenerative lumbar disorders and had undergone both conventional MRI and 3D-MRI during the same visit. Differences between the FSRs calculated from conventional and 3D-MRI reconstructions and any correlations with the plain radiography findings were assessed. RESULTS: In foramina that had a FSR of <50% on conventional MRI, the difference between the FSR obtained using conventional MRI and 3D-MRI was 5.1%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.777. For foramina with a FSR ≥50% on conventional MRI, the difference was 20.2%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.54. FSR obtained using 3D-MRI was significantly greater in patients who required surgery than in those who were successfully treated with conservative methods (88% and 42%, respectively). Segments with spondylolisthesis or lateral wedging showed higher FSRs than those without these conditions on both types of MRI. CONCLUSIONS: FSRs <50% obtained using conventional MRI were sufficiently reliable; however, the results were inaccurate for FSRs ≥50%. Patients with high FSRs on 3D-MRI were more likely to require surgical treatment. Therefore, 3D-MRI is recommended in patients with suspected stenosis detected using conventional MRI or plain radiographs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8377208
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83772082021-08-25 Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis? Hasib, Maruf Mohammad Yamada, Kentaro Hoshino, Masatoshi Yamada, Eiji Tamai, Koji Takahashi, Shinji Suzuki, Akinobu Toyoda, Hiromitsu Terai, Hidetomi Nakamura, Hiroaki Asian Spine J Clinical Study STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective radiological comparative design. PURPOSE: To investigate whether conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could substitute three-dimensional (3D)-MRI for the calculation of the foraminal stenotic ratio (FSR) and clarification of which patients can be assessed more accurately using 3D-MRI. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Previous studies have indicated that 3D-MRI is useful for diagnosing lumbar foraminal stenosis. The FSR obtained using 3D-MRI, described as the ratio of stenosis length, characterized by perineural fat obliteration, to the length of the entire foramen, could indicate the stenosis severity; however, this method is time-consuming and expensive. The FSR also can be calculated using conventional MRI. METHODS: We investigated 154 foramina at L5–S1 in 77 patients. All the patients had degenerative lumbar disorders and had undergone both conventional MRI and 3D-MRI during the same visit. Differences between the FSRs calculated from conventional and 3D-MRI reconstructions and any correlations with the plain radiography findings were assessed. RESULTS: In foramina that had a FSR of <50% on conventional MRI, the difference between the FSR obtained using conventional MRI and 3D-MRI was 5.1%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.777. For foramina with a FSR ≥50% on conventional MRI, the difference was 20.2%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.54. FSR obtained using 3D-MRI was significantly greater in patients who required surgery than in those who were successfully treated with conservative methods (88% and 42%, respectively). Segments with spondylolisthesis or lateral wedging showed higher FSRs than those without these conditions on both types of MRI. CONCLUSIONS: FSRs <50% obtained using conventional MRI were sufficiently reliable; however, the results were inaccurate for FSRs ≥50%. Patients with high FSRs on 3D-MRI were more likely to require surgical treatment. Therefore, 3D-MRI is recommended in patients with suspected stenosis detected using conventional MRI or plain radiographs. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2021-08 2020-10-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8377208/ /pubmed/33059434 http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0133 Text en Copyright © 2021 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Hasib, Maruf Mohammad
Yamada, Kentaro
Hoshino, Masatoshi
Yamada, Eiji
Tamai, Koji
Takahashi, Shinji
Suzuki, Akinobu
Toyoda, Hiromitsu
Terai, Hidetomi
Nakamura, Hiroaki
Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?
title Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?
title_full Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?
title_fullStr Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?
title_full_unstemmed Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?
title_short Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?
title_sort can conventional magnetic resonance imaging substitute three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lumbar foraminal stenosis?
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8377208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33059434
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0133
work_keys_str_mv AT hasibmarufmohammad canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT yamadakentaro canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT hoshinomasatoshi canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT yamadaeiji canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT tamaikoji canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT takahashishinji canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT suzukiakinobu canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT toyodahiromitsu canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT teraihidetomi canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis
AT nakamurahiroaki canconventionalmagneticresonanceimagingsubstitutethreedimensionalmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisoflumbarforaminalstenosis