Display options
Share it on

J Clin Imaging Sci. 2017 Aug 31;7:35. doi: 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_24_17. eCollection 2017.

Sagittal Normal Limits of Lumbosacral Spine in a Large Adult Population: A Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis.

Journal of clinical imaging science

Antonio Pierro, Savino Cilla, Giuseppina Maselli, Eleonora Cucci, Matteo Ciuffreda, Giuseppina Sallustio

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura "Giovanni Paolo II", Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy.
  2. Medical Physics Unit, Oncology Department, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura "Giovanni Paolo II," Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy.

PMID: 28904831 PMCID: PMC5590400 DOI: 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_24_17

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbosacral spine from L1 to S1, the values of the normal sagittal diameter of the spinal canal (SCD), sagittal diameter of the dural sac (DSD), and the normal values of dural sac ratio (DSR) in a large nonsymptomatic adult population and to discriminate whether a vertebral canal is pathological or nonpathological for dural ectasia and/or stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six hundred and four patients were prospectively enrolled. All measurements were performed on MRI sagittal T1- and T2-weighted images. The 95% confidence interval (95% CI), defined as mean ± 1.96 standard deviation, was determined for each metric. The upper limit of 95% CI was considered the cutoff value for the normal DSR; the lower limit of 95% CI was considered the cutoff value for the normal SCD.

RESULTS: SCD cutoff values from L1 to S1 ranged from 14.5-10.1 mm (males) to 15.0-9.9 mm (females). DSD ratios at S1 and L4 level show a significant difference in male and female groups: 11% of S1/L4 values exceeded 1 in male group while only 4% of S1/L4 values exceeded 1 in female group. Mean DSR at each level was significantly higher in female patients than in male patients (

CONCLUSIONS: We determined the cutoff values for the normal DSR and for the normal SCD. Our findings show the relevant discrepancies with respect to literature data for diagnosis of lumbar stenosis and/or dural ectasia.

Keywords: Dural ectasia; Marfan syndrome; lumbar stenosis; spine

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Eur Spine J. 2012 Aug;21 Suppl 6:S760-4 - PubMed
  2. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2009;60(1):7-17 - PubMed
  3. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Oct 1;35(21):1919-24 - PubMed
  4. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Oct 1;137(7):586-97 - PubMed
  5. Radiology. 2001 Aug;220(2):514-8 - PubMed
  6. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1977 May;59(2):181-8 - PubMed
  7. Am J Med Genet. 1996 Apr 24;62(4):417-26 - PubMed
  8. Pediatr Radiol. 2005 Apr;35(4):419-24 - PubMed
  9. Radiology. 1980 Jan;134(1):137-43 - PubMed
  10. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Sep;195(3):550-9 - PubMed
  11. Orthopedics. 2013 Feb;36(2):e229-34 - PubMed
  12. Radiology. 2012 Jul;264(1):174-9 - PubMed
  13. Radiology. 2005 Feb;234(2):535-41 - PubMed
  14. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010 Apr;24(2):253-65 - PubMed
  15. PLoS One. 2015 Aug 24;10 (8):e0133685 - PubMed
  16. Radiology. 2011 Dec;261(3):681-4 - PubMed
  17. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Feb;89(2):358-66 - PubMed
  18. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 2;147(7):478-91 - PubMed
  19. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;119:541-9 - PubMed
  20. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Mar 1;27(5):453-9 - PubMed
  21. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1979 Jul-Aug;4(4):369-78 - PubMed
  22. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2009 Mar-Apr;11(2):156-63 - PubMed
  23. Rev Med Chil. 2011 Nov;139(11):1488-95 - PubMed
  24. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Sep;30(8):1534-40 - PubMed
  25. Clin Radiol. 2006 Nov;61(11):971-8 - PubMed
  26. Spine J. 2009 Jul;9(7):545-50 - PubMed
  27. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1977 May;59(2):173-80 - PubMed
  28. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2011;69(4):303-7 - PubMed
  29. Surg Radiol Anat. 1991;13(4):289-91 - PubMed
  30. Spine J. 2005 Nov-Dec;5(6):615-22 - PubMed

Publication Types