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.
BotwinKPGruberRD. Lumbar spinal stenosis: anatomy and pathogenesis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am2003;14:1–15. v.
2.
MoonM-SKimS-SSihnJ-C. Lumbar spinal stenosis – a current view. Orthop Trauma2014;28:396–408.
3.
AmundsenTWeberHLilleåsF, et al.Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine1995;20:1178–1186.
4.
BolenderN-FSchönströmNSpenglerD. Role of computed tomography and myelography in the diagnosis of central spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am1985;67:240–246.
5.
WilminkJPenningL. Influence of spinal posture on abnormalities demonstrated by lumbar myelography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol1983;4:656–658.
6.
ZanderDRLanderPH. Positionally dependent spinal stenosis: correlation of upright flexion-extension myelography and computed tomographic myelography. Can Assoc Radiol J1998;49:256–261.
7.
KannoHEndoTOzawaH, et al.Axial loading during magnetic resonance imaging in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis: does it reproduce the positional change of the dural sac detected by upright myelography?Spine2012;37:E985–EE92.
InufusaAAnHSLimT-H, et al.Anatomic changes of the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen associated with flexion-extension movement. Spine1996;21:2412–2420.
10.
TakahashiSLordELHayashiT, et al.Radiologic factors associated with the dynamic change of dural sac diameter in lumbar spine. Clin Spine Surg2017;30:E827–E832.
11.
FujiwaraAAnHSLimT-H, et al.Morphologic changes in the lumbar intervertebral foramen due to flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation: an in vitro anatomic and biomechanical study. Spine2001;26:876–882.
12.
PenningLWilminkJ. Biomechanics of lumbosacral dural sac. A study of flexion-extension myelography. Spine1981;6:398–408.
13.
DanielsonBIWillenJGaulitzA, et al.Axial loading of the spine during CT and MR in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Radiol1998;39:604–611.
14.
WillénJDanielsonBGaulitzA, et al.Dynamic effects on the lumbar spinal canal: axially loaded CT-myelography and MRI in patients with sciatica and/or neurogenic claudication. Spine1997;22:2968–2976.
15.
TarantinoUFanucciEIundusiR, et al.Lumbar spine MRI in upright position for diagnosing acute and chronic low back pain: statistical analysis of morphological changes. J Orthop Trauma2013;14:15–22.
16.
MadsenRJensenTSPopeM, et al.The effect of body position and axial load on spinal canal morphology: an MRI study of central spinal stenosis. Spine2008;33:61–67.
17.
AliHISalehA. Lumbar spine MRI axial loading in patients with degenerative spine pathologies: its impact on the radiological findings and treatment decision. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine2015;46:1065–1069.
18.
KimuraSSteinbachGCWatenpaughDE, et al.Lumbar spine disc height and curvature responses to an axial load generated by a compression device compatible with magnetic resonance imaging. Spine2001;26:2596–2600.
19.
LorencTPalczewskiPWójcikD, et al.Diagnostic benefits of axial-loaded magnetic resonance imaging over recumbent magnetic resonance imaging in obese lower back pain patients. Spine2018;43:1146–1153.
20.
SasaniHSolmazBSasaniM, et al.Diagnostic importance of axial loaded magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspected lumbar spinal canal stenosis. World Neurosurg2019;127:e69–e75.
21.
SungkaratWLaothamatasJWorapruekjaruL, et al.Axial-loaded MRI using a SpineMAC device to show narrowing of dural sac and disc height in lumbar spinal stenosis. J Med Assoc Thai2020;103:1325–1334.
22.
WillénJDanielsonB. The diagnostic effect from axial loading of the lumbar spine during computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with degenerative disorders. Spine2001;26:2607–2614.
23.
HiokiAMiyamotoKSakaiH, et al.Lumbar axial loading device alters lumbar sagittal alignment differently from upright standing position: a computed tomography study. Spine2010;35:995–1001.
24.
KannoHOzawaHKoizumiY, et al.Changes in lumbar spondylolisthesis on axial-loaded MRI: do they reproduce the positional changes in the degree of olisthesis observed on X-ray images in the standing position?Spine J2015;15:1255–1262.
25.
WessbergPDanielsonBIWillénJ. Comparison of Cobb angles in idiopathic scoliosis on standing radiographs and supine axially loaded MRI. Spine2006;31:3039–3044.
26.
WeberCIHwangC-TVan DillenLR, et al.Effects of standing on lumbar spine alignment and intervertebral disc geometry in young, healthy individuals determined by positional magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Biomech2019;65:128–134.
27.
ShroutPEFleissJL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull1979;86:420–428.
28.
BlandJMAltmanD. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986;327:307–310.
29.
PortneyLGWatkinsMP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009.
30.
WrenTAAggabaoPCPoorghasamiansE, et al.Association between vertebral cross-sectional area and lumbar lordosis angle in adolescents. PLoS One2017;12:e0172844.
31.
DanielsonBWillénJ. Axially loaded magnetic resonance image of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic individuals. Spine2001;26:2601–2606.
32.
HanssonTSuzukiNHebelkaH, et al.The narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal during loaded MRI: the effects of the disc and ligamentum flavum. Eur Spine J2009;18:679–686.
33.
KannoHAizawaTOzawaH, et al.An increase in the degree of olisthesis during axial loading reduces the dural sac size and worsens clinical symptoms in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine J2018;18:726–733.
34.
SungkaratWLaothamatasJWorapruekjaruL, et al.Lumbosacral spinal compression device with the use of a cushion back support in supine MRI. Acta Radiol2021;62:1052–1062.
35.
HansenBBHansenPGrindstedJ, et al.Conventional supine MRI with a lumbar pillow—an alternative to weight-bearing MRI for diagnosing spinal stenosis?: a cross-sectional study. Spine2017;42:662–669.
36.
PaulCSmitTde GraafM, et al.Quantitative MRI in early intervertebral disc degeneration: t1rho correlates better than T2 and ADC with biomechanics and matrix content. PLoS One2018;13:e0191442.
37.
O’ConnellGDJohannessenWVresilovicEJ, et al.Human internal disc strains in axial compression measured noninvasively using magnetic resonance imaging. Spine2007;32:2860–2868.
38.
SkellyACMooreEDettoriJR. Comprehensive evidence-based health technology assessment: effectiveness of upright MRI for evaluation of patients with suspected spinal or extra-spinal joint dysfunction. Olympia, WA: Washington State Health Care Authority, 2007.
