Axial loading during supine MRI for improved assessment of lumbar spine: comparison with standing MRI.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies comparing the morphologic changes of lumbar spines between supine axial-loaded and 90° standing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of patients with spinal stenosis. PURPOSE: To determine whether axial-loaded MRI using a compression device demonstrated similar morphology of intervertebral disc, dural sac, and spinal curvature as those detected by 90° standing MRI in individuals with suspected spinal stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 54 individuals suspected of having spinal stenosis underwent both axial-loaded and standing MRI studies. The outcome measures included seven radiologic parameters of the lumbar spine: measures of the intervertebral disc (i.e. cross-sectional area [DA], disc height [DH], and anteroposterior distance [DAP]), dural sac (cross-sectional area [DCSA]), spinal curvature (i.e. lumbar lordosis [LL] and L1-L3-L5 angle [LA]), and total lumbar spine height (LH). RESULTS: For agreement between the two methods, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ≥ 0.8 was found for all seven radiologic parameters. Supine axial-loaded MRI underestimated LL but remained correlated (ICC = 0.83) with standing MRI. Minor differences between the two methods (≤5.0%) were observed in DA, DCSA, DAP, LA, and LH, while a major difference was observed in LL (8.1%). CONCLUSION: Using a compression device with the conventional supine MRI to simulate weight-bearing on the lumbar spine generated MRI morphology, which was strongly correlated with those from a standing MRI.

Lumbosacral spinal compression device with the use of a cushion back support in supine MRI.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that axial-loaded magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), modified with the use of a cushion placed behind the lower back (i.e. BS-MRI method), would simulate the standing position more accurately than an axial-loaded MRI without a cushion back support (BS). PURPOSE: To determine whether the BS-MRI method demonstrated similar morphologies on intervertebral disc (IVD), dural sac, and spinal curvature as those detected on 90° standing MRIs in individuals with suspected spinal stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five subjects underwent a BS-MRI, as well as axial-loaded and standing MRI studies. Outcome measures were four radiographic parameters of the lumbar spine: IVD height (DH); dural sac cross-sectional area (DCSA); and spinal curvature (i.e. lumbar lordosis [LL] and L1-L3-L5 angle [LA]). RESULTS: Major differences (>5%) between standing MRI and BS-MRI methods were observed in DCSA, DH, and LL. Major differences between standing and axial loaded MRIs were observed only in DCSA and LA. Although BS-MRIs demonstrate an image of the lumbar spine curvature (i.e. LA) which is closer to that when standing than axial-loaded MRIs, it is likely to overestimate both narrowing of dural sac and extent of LL. CONCLUSION: Using a compression device with a BS to simulate weight-bearing on the lumbar spine is not recommended due to: (i) overestimation of the narrowing of the dural sac and extent of LL; and (ii) underestimation of loss of disc height. Supine axial-loading produced DCSA and DH which were strongly correlated with those detected with standing MRIs. Exceptions were that LL and LA were underestimated.