Advanced Quantitative Spine Imaging

Griffith, James F.

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1713608

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 119 publications

(166 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using CT data enables readily acquisition of large volume data, though CT does not allow measurement of spinal cord size. Our aim was to develop a reference range for spinal canal size which is known to vary significantly more than spinal cord size ( 9 , 13 ). As both CT and MRI are cross-sectional modalities, there should be good correlation between CT and MRI measurements, though no such cross-collaborative studies have been performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As developmental spinal canal size is very closely associated with myelopathy and radiculopathy, including only asymptomatic subjects would have introduced bias, favoring patients with developmentally larger spinal canals. Conversely, including only patients with neck symptoms would have introduced bias, favouring patients with developmentally smaller spinal canals ( 13 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developmental cervical spinal canal size: population reference range

Griffith,

Lee

2024

Quant Imaging Med Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The developmental size of the cervical spinal canal varies considerably. Neural compression and injury are more likely with a developmentally small spinal canal. This study was designed to develop a population reference range for developmental cervical spinal canal size for the Hong Kong population. Methods Prospective study of 522 ambulatory patients (256 males, 266 females, mean age 55±18 years; range, 20–89 years) who underwent computed tomography (CT) neck examinations. Using a manually operated segmentation program, spinal canal, and vertebral body cross-sectional area (CSA), anteroposterior (AP) sagittal diameter, and width were measured at each level from C3–C7. Patient height and weight were measured. Results Considerable variation in spinal canal size existed with, for example, a 164–168% variation exists for males and females between the largest and smallest spinal canal CSA at C5. All spinal canal measurements increased slightly with height (r=0.25–0.36, P<0.001), while vertebral body AP sagittal diameter increased with age (r=0.48–0.51, P<0.001). All spinal canal measurements were larger (<0.0001) in males. Although spinal canal CSA was larger in males (at C5, males 276.0±41.5 mm 2 ; females 252.6±38.4 mm 2 ), relative to vertebral body CSA, spinal canal CSA was larger in females. Arbitrary population thresholds indicating the smallest 25% spinal canal CSA and AP sagittal diameter as well as other parameters were defined. Conclusions There is a large variation in developmental cervical spinal canal size within the Hong Kong population. A reference range of developmental spinal canal size was developed which will enable an objective assessment of an individual’s cervical spinal canal size relative to the wider population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%