Display options
Cite
Guzik G. The Correspondence Between Magnetic Resonance Images and the 
Clinical and Intraoperative Status of Patients with Spinal Tumors. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2016;12(2):149-155doi: 10.2174/1573405612666160128235556.
Guzik, G. (2016). The Correspondence Between Magnetic Resonance Images and the 
Clinical and Intraoperative Status of Patients with Spinal Tumors. Current medical imaging reviews, 12(2), 149-155. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573405612666160128235556
Guzik, Grzegorz. "The Correspondence Between Magnetic Resonance Images and the 
Clinical and Intraoperative Status of Patients with Spinal Tumors." Current medical imaging reviews vol. 12,2 (2016): 149-155. doi: https://doi.org/10.2174/1573405612666160128235556
Guzik G. The Correspondence Between Magnetic Resonance Images and the 
Clinical and Intraoperative Status of Patients with Spinal Tumors. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2016 May;12(2):149-155. doi: 10.2174/1573405612666160128235556. PMID: 27853411; PMCID: PMC5078596.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2016 May;12(2):149-155. doi: 10.2174/1573405612666160128235556.

The Correspondence Between Magnetic Resonance Images and the 
Clinical and Intraoperative Status of Patients with Spinal Tumors.

Current medical imaging reviews

Grzegorz Guzik

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Oncology, Specialist Hospital in Brzozów- Podkarpacie Oncology Centre, Dworska 77a, 38-420 Korczyna, Polska.

PMID: 27853411 PMCID: PMC5078596 DOI: 10.2174/1573405612666160128235556

Abstract

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment of tumors, particularly metastases to the spine, has become increasingly common owing to the progress in anesthesiology and spinal surgery and greater detectability. The patients qualified for surgeries are those with mechanical pain, fracture or at risk of vertebral fracture or neurological complications. The basis for qualification for different types of surgeries is clinical and imaging examination, particularly MRI and CT. Qualification should always be multidisciplinary and requires understanding and knowledge of its most essential aspects. When carrying out imaging examinations, it is necessary to assess the size and the type of the tumor, taking into account of differential diagnosis. One should also consider the factors indicating spinal instability or the onset of neurological deficits. The criteria developed by Kostiuk-Weinstain and Taneichi are used for that purpose. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the correspondence between the most essential elements of clinical and MRI examination of the spine and the intraoperative status of patients with spinal tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out prospective examination assessing the correspondence between the clinical status and MR images and the intraoperative spine. We introduced algorithm to describe the morphology of neoplastic lesions within the spine.

RESULTS: The information obtained from the clinical examination and the intraoperative status of the spine corresponded with the MRI examination with the exception of the assessment of neoplastic infiltration to soft tissues, dura mater and nerve roots. It was also found that there are no clear-cut MRI features allowing differentiation of metastatic lesions from primary tumors and osteitis. Furthermore, MRI examination does not allow for the assessment of the quality of bone tissue in the vicinity of the tumor.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance; qualification for spinal surgery; spinal metastases; spine tumors; surgical treatment of the 
spine

References

  1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Apr;82(4):570-94 - PubMed
  2. Radiology. 1993 Jul;188(1):249-52 - PubMed
  3. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Jan;21(1):248-62 - PubMed
  4. Arch Neurol. 1997 Jan;54(1):16-7 - PubMed
  5. Q J Nucl Med. 2001 Mar;45(1):53-64 - PubMed
  6. Semin Roentgenol. 2004 Jul;39(3):361-72 - PubMed
  7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Sep 15;24(18):1943-51 - PubMed
  8. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Oct 15;35(22):E1221-9 - PubMed
  9. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Feb 1;22(3):239-45 - PubMed
  10. Skeletal Radiol. 1991;20(2):79-84 - PubMed
  11. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 May 1;22(9):1036-44 - PubMed
  12. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29(22):3072-7 - PubMed
  13. Radiographics. 2003 Jan-Feb;23(1):179-87 - PubMed
  14. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007 May;15(2):239-55, vii - PubMed
  15. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990 Oct;155(4):817-24 - PubMed
  16. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999 Sep;81(5):830-4 - PubMed
  17. Semin Oncol. 1991 Apr;18(2):158-69 - PubMed
  18. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005 Sep;80(9):1177-86 - PubMed
  19. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 Jan;19(1):37-48 - PubMed
  20. Radiology. 2002 Dec;225(3):730-5 - PubMed
  21. Radiographics. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):1019-41 - PubMed
  22. J Nucl Med. 1996 Jun;37(6):975-8 - PubMed
  23. Clin Imaging. 2008 May-Jun;32(3):204-11 - PubMed
  24. Eur Spine J. 2007 Mar;16(3):405-9 - PubMed

Publication Types