MR-myelography: a comparison with conventional myelography

Hergan, Klaus; Amann, Thomas; Vonbank, Herbert; Hefel, Christoph

doi:10.1016/0720-048x(95)00730-e

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there are different opinions about MRM, which is less accurate 12,16) . Myelography is good radiologic method for the evaluation of spinal disease, especially in specific conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Myelography in Young Soldiers with Herniated Lumbar Disc

Kang

Choi

Seong

et al. 2010

J Korean Neurosurg Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective : This study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic performances of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), MR myelography (MRM) and myelography in young soldiers with a herniated lumbar disc (HLD). Methods : Sixty-five male soldiers with HLD comprised the study cohort. A visual analogue scale for low back pain (VAS-LBP), VAS for leg radiating pain (VAS-LP), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were applied. Lumbar MR, MRM, and myelographic findings were checked and evaluated by four independent radiologists, respectively. Each radiologist was asked to score (1 to 5) the degree of disc protrusion and nerve root compression using modified grading systems devised by the North American Spine Society and Pfirrmann and the physical examination rules for conscription in the Republic of Korea. Correlated coefficients between clinical and radiological factors were calculated. Interpretational reproducibility between MRI and myelography by four bases were calculated and compared. Results : Mean patient age was 20.5 ± 1.1. Mean VAS-LBP and VAS-LP were 6.7 ± 1.6 and 7.4 ± 1.7, respectively. Mean ODI was 48.0 ± 16.2%. Mean MRI, MRM, and myelography scores were 3.3 ± 0.9, 3.5 ± 1.0, and 3.9 ± 1.1, respectively. All scores of diagnostic performances were significantly correlated (p < 0.05). However, none of these scores reflected the severity of patients' symptoms. There was no statistical difference of interpretational reproducibility between MRI and myelography. Conclusion : Although MRI and myelography are based on different principles, they produce similar interpretational reproducibility in young soldiers with a HLD. However, these modalities do not reflect the severity of symptoms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Myelography in Young Soldiers with Herniated Lumbar Disc

Kang

Choi

Seong

et al. 2010

J Korean Neurosurg Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Major advantages of MR-myelography include its noninvasive nature, lack of ionizing radiation and of intrathecal contrast material [6]. MR-myelography has another added advantage in the depiction of multi-segmental and severe spinal canal stenosis [6,13]. This fact is related to the inability of the contrast agent in conventional myelography to reach those regions situated distal to the stenosis [4].…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

MR-myelography as an adjunct to the MR examination of the degenerative spine

Ferrer

Martí‐Bonmatí²,

Mollá

et al. 2004

Magn Reson Mater Phy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our objective was to analyse the usefulness of single-slice MR-myelography images as a complementary test to conventional MR of the spine in patients with clinically suspected degenerative spine disease. A prospective analysis of 1022 consecutive patients studied with conventional MR and MR-myelography (four acquisitions: one coronal plane, one sagittal plane, and two oblique lateral, right and left planes) examinations was performed. Conventional MR and MR-myelography studies were classified as positive when morphological or structural alterations were noted. Positive MR-myelography information was also categorized as relevant if findings were considered important and radiologically significative to the final diagnosis (either by increasing the radiologists confidence in the diagnosis or because the findings were not observed in the conventional study). Other positive findings were considered non- relevant. There were 62% cases considered positive in the MR-myelography examination. Of them, 3% revealed no alterations on the conventional MR examination. Of the negative MR-myelography studies, 75% had a positive conventional MR examination. Considered as diagnostic techniques, their Kappa concordance was poor. However, MR-myelography complemented the information obtained with the conventional MR examination of the spine, this information being relevant to the final MR diagnosis in 22% of the total number of cases. The contribution of MR-myelography was not different in the three spinal levels. In conclusion, MR-myelography complements the information obtained with conventional MR in a large number of cases.

show abstract

“…Myelography is indeed often superior to MRI in visualising nerve roots and nerve root sleeves, when optimal details are required [1], and in pre-operative assessments when computed tomography (CT) and MRI results are uncertain, especially in combination with CT myelography (myelo CT) [2]. Further, there will still be a need for Xray myelography in exceptional cases and in hospitals lacking MRI facilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison in myelography between iodixanol 270 and 320 mgI/ml and iotrolan 300 mgI/ml: a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, phase III trial

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of the non-ionic, dimeric, isotonic contrast medium iodixanol (Visipaque 270 and 320 mgI/ml) with those of iotrolan (Isovist 300 mgI/ml) in myelography. After lumbar or cervical puncture, 315 patients were examined in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, comparative myelography study. Image quality, changes in vital signs, immediate and delayed adverse events were registered. There was a tendency for better images with iodixanol 320 than with iodixanol 270 and iotrolan 300, but the overall quality was good or excellent with all products. The frequency of patients reporting adverse events and headache varied much across centres, but there was no statistically significant difference between the contrast media. The incidence of events was higher after lumbar puncture than after cervical puncture, in women rather than in men, and after puncture with a 22-gauge (G) bevel-tipped needle compared with a 24 G Sprotte needle. The frequency of headache did not correlate with the absence of pathology. The higher iodine concentration in iodixanol 320 could be an advantage for film quality. When compared with iotrolan 300, iodixanol 320 and 270 give similar incidences of adverse events, including headache.

show abstract

MR-myelography: a comparison with conventional myelography

Cited by 23 publications

References 7 publications

Comparative Study of Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Myelography in Young Soldiers with Herniated Lumbar Disc

Comparative Study of Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Myelography in Young Soldiers with Herniated Lumbar Disc

MR-myelography as an adjunct to the MR examination of the degenerative spine

Comparison in myelography between iodixanol 270 and 320 mgI/ml and iotrolan 300 mgI/ml: a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, phase III trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About