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