Comparison of axial and sagittal spinal cord motion measurements in 
degenerative cervical myelopathy

Pfender, Nikolai; Rosner, Jan; Zipser, Carl Moritz; Friedl, Susanne; Vallotton, Kevin; Sutter, Reto; Klarhoefer, Markus; Schubert, Martin; Betz, Michael; Spirig, José Miguel; Seif, Maryam; Hubli, Michèle; Freund, Patrick; Farshad, Mazda; Curt, Armin; Hupp, Markus

doi:10.1111/jon.13035

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Comparison of axial and sagittal spinal cord motion measurements in degenerative cervical myelopathy

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons266026

Seif, Maryam
Balgrist Spinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland;
Department Neurophysics (Weiskopf), MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

Pfender_2022.pdf
(Publisher version), 4MB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Pfender, N., Rosner, J., Zipser, C. M., Friedl, S., Vallotton, K., Sutter, R., et al. (2022). Comparison of axial and sagittal spinal cord motion measurements in degenerative cervical myelopathy. Journal of Neuroimaging, 32(6), 1121-1133. doi:10.1111/jon.13035.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000A-F0AB-6

Abstract

Background and purpose: The timing of decision-making for a surgical intervention in patients with mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is challenging. Spinal cord motion phase contrast MRI (PC-MRI) measurements can reveal the extent of dynamic mechanical strain on the spinal cord to potentially identify high-risk patients. This study aims to determine the comparability of axial and sagittal PC-MRI measurements of spinal cord motion with the prospect of improving the clinical workup.

Methods: Sixty-four DCM patients underwent a PC-MRI scan assessing spinal cord motion. The agreement of axial and sagittal measurements was determined by means of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analyses.

Results: The comparability of axial and sagittal PC-MRI measurements was good to excellent at all cervical levels (ICCs motion amplitude: .810-.940; p < .001). Significant differences between axial and sagittal amplitude values could be found at segments C3 and C4, while its magnitude was low (C3: 0.07 ± 0.19 cm/second; C4: -0.12 ± 0.30 cm/second). Bland-Altman analysis showed a good agreement between axial and sagittal PC-MRI scans (coefficients of repeatability: minimum -0.23 cm/second at C2; maximum -0.58 cm/second at C4). Subgroup analysis regarding anatomic conditions (stenotic vs. nonstenotic segments) and different velocity encoding (2 vs. 3 cm/second) showed comparable results.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates good comparability between axial and sagittal spinal cord motion measurements in DCM patients. To this end, axial and sagittal PC-MRI are both accurate and sensitive in detecting pathologic cord motion. Therefore, such measures could identify high-risk patients and improve clinical decision-making (ie, timing of decompression).