Cervical spine stenosis measures in normal subjects

被引:2
作者
Tierney, RT
Maldjian, C
Mattacola, CG
Straub, SJ
Sitler, MR
机构
[1] Temple Univ, Dept Kinesiol, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA
[2] NYU, New York, NY USA
[3] Univ Kentucky, Lexington, KY USA
[4] Quinnipiac Univ, Hamden, CT USA
关键词
spinal stenosis; spinal cord; MRI;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 [教育学]; 0403 [体育学];
摘要
Objective: To compare 2 methods of determining cervical spinal stenosis (Torg ratio, space available for the cord [SAC]); determine which of the components of the Torg ratio and the SAC account for more of the variability in the measures; and present standardized SAC values for normal subjects using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Design and Setting: The research design consisted of a posttest-only, comparison-group design. The independent variable was method of measurement (Torg ratio and SAC). The dependent variables were Torg ratio and SAC scores. Subjects: Fourteen men (age = 24.4 +/- 2.5 years, height = 181.0 +/- 5.8 cm, weight = 90 +/- 13.5 kg) participated in this study. The C3 to C7 vertebrae were examined in each subject (n = 70). Measurements: The Torg ratio was determined by dividing the sagittal spinal-canal diameter by the corresponding sagittal vertebral-body diameter. The SAC was determined by subtracting the sagittal spinal-cord diameter from the corresponding sagittal spinal-canal diameter. The Torg ratio and SAC were measured in millimeters. Results: The SAC ranged from 2.5 to 10.4 mm and was greatest at C7 in 71% (10 of 14) of the subjects. The SAC was least at C3 or C5 in 71% (10 of 14) of the subjects. A Pearson product moment correlation revealed a significant relationship between the Torg ratio and SAC (r = .53, P < .01). Regression analyses revealed the vertebral body (r(2) = .58) accounted for more variability in the Torg ratio than the spinal canal (r(2) = .48). Also, the spinal canal (r(2) = .66) accounted for more variability in the SAC than the spinal cord (r(2) = .23). Conclusions: The SAC measure relies more on the spinal canal compared with the Torg ratio and, therefore, may be a more effective indicator of spinal stenosis. This is relevant clinically because neurologic injury related to stenosis is a function of the spinal canal and the spinal cord (not the vertebral body). Further research must be done, however, to validate the SAC measure.
引用
收藏
页码:190 / 193
页数:4
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]
Stingers, the Torg ratio, and the cervical spine [J].
Castro, FP ;
Ricciardi, J ;
Brunet, ME ;
Busch, MT ;
Whitecloud, TS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 1997, 25 (05) :603-608
[2]
PEDIATRIC CERVICAL-SPINE IMMOBILIZATION - ACHIEVING NEUTRAL POSITION [J].
CURRAN, C ;
DIETRICH, AM ;
BOWMAN, MJ ;
GINNPEASE, ME ;
KING, DR ;
KOSNIK, E .
JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 1995, 39 (04) :729-732
[3]
Optimal positioning for cervical immobilization [J].
DeLorenzo, RA ;
Olson, JE ;
Boska, M ;
Johnston, R ;
Hamilton, GC ;
Augustine, J ;
Barton, R .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1996, 28 (03) :301-308
[4]
Grant T T, 1976, Am J Sports Med, V4, P219, DOI 10.1177/036354657600400505
[5]
TRUE SAGITTAL DIAMETER OF CERVICAL SPINAL CANAL AND ITS DIAGNOSTIC SIGNIFICANCE IN CERVICAL MYELOPATHY [J].
HASHIMOTO, I ;
TAK, YK .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 1977, 47 (06) :912-916
[6]
Herzog RJ, 1991, SPINE, V16, P178
[7]
MORPHOMETRY OF THE NORMAL CADAVERIC CERVICAL SPINAL-CORD [J].
KAMEYAMA, T ;
HASHIZUME, Y ;
ANDO, T ;
TAKAHASHI, A .
SPINE, 1994, 19 (18) :2077-2081
[8]
Volume fast spin-echo imaging of the cervical spine [J].
Maldjian, C ;
Adam, RJ ;
Akhtar, N ;
Bonakdarpour, A ;
Boyko, OB .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 1999, 6 (02) :84-88
[9]
Volume (three-dimensional) fast spin-echo imaging of the lumbar spine [J].
Maldjian, C ;
Adam, RJ ;
Akhtar, N ;
Maldjian, JA ;
Bonakdarpour, A ;
Boyko, O .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 1999, 6 (06) :339-342
[10]
COMPARISON OF COMPUTERIZED-TOMOGRAPHY PARAMETERS OF THE CERVICAL-SPINE IN NORMAL CONTROL SUBJECTS AND SPINAL CORD-INJURED PATIENTS [J].
MATSUURA, P ;
WATERS, RL ;
ADKINS, RH ;
ROTHMAN, S ;
GURBANI, N ;
SIE, I .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1989, 71A (02) :183-188