MR Imaging as the Primary Modality for Neuroradiologic Evaluation of the Lumbar Spine

1996 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-381
Author(s):  
Per H. Nakstad
1996 ◽  
Vol 37 (1P1) ◽  
pp. 373-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Annertz ◽  
H. Wingstrand ◽  
B. Strömqvist ◽  
S. Holtås

Purpose: To evaluate the effects on cost, and number of primary and supplementary neuroradiologic examinations, after introducing MR imaging as the primary modality in the evaluation of the lumbar spine. Material and Methods: Two 5-month periods were compared: period 1 — before MR; and period 2 — after introduction of a 2nd MR device. In period 1, patients were examined with myelography and/or CT after referral from specialists only, whereas in period 2 both specialists and general practitioners could refer patients for MR imaging. The direct cost (neuroradiologic methods and hospitalization) and indirect cost (sick-leave and estimated loss of production caused by the diagnostic procedure) were estimated. Results and Conclusion: In period 1, investigations were started in 75 patients (62 myelographies and 13 CT examinations); in period 2, in 227 patients (198 MR, 21 CT, and 8 myelographies). The estimated total cost increased from SEK 825 000 to 1 265 000 (53%), the cost per investigated patient decreasing from 11 000 to 5565 (50%), and the cost of preoperative investigation per operated patient decreasing from 8616 to 5563 (35%). The number of supplementary examinations was unchanged.


1996 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mårten Annnertz ◽  
H. Wingstrand ◽  
B. Strömqvist ◽  
S. Holtås

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Yang ◽  
Zhiyun Feng ◽  
Nian Chen ◽  
Zhenhua Hong ◽  
Yongyu Zheng ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To investigate the role of gravity in the sedimentation of lumbar spine nerve roots using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of various body positions. Methods A total of 56 patients, who suffered from back pain and underwent conventional supine lumbar spine MR imaging, were selected from sanmen hospital database. All the patients were called back to our hospital to perform MR imaging in prone position or lateral position. Furthermore, the sedimentation sign (SedSign) was determined based on the suspension of the nerve roots in the dural sac on cross-sectional MR images, and 31 cases were rated as positive and another 25 cases were negative. Results The mean age of negative SedSign group was significantly younger than that of positive SedSign group (51.7 ± 8.7 vs 68.4 ± 10.5, P < 0.05). The constitutions of clinical diagnosis were significantly different between patients with a positive SedSign and those with a negative SedSign (P < 0.001). Overall, nerve roots of the vast majority of patients (48/56, 85.7%) subsided to the ventral side of the dural sac on the prone MR images, although that of 8 (14.3%) patients remain stay in the dorsal side of dural sac. Nerve roots of only one patient with negative SedSign did not settle to the ventral dural sac, while this phenomenon occurred in 7 patients in positive SedSign group (4% vs 22.6%, P < 0.001). In addition, the nerve roots of all the five patients subsided to the left side of dural sac on lateral position MR images. Conclusions The nerve roots sedimentation followed the direction of gravity. Positive SedSign may be a MR sign of lumbar pathology involved the spinal canal.


1999 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-602
Author(s):  
Peter C. Young ◽  
Cheryl A. Petersilge
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bjarke B. Hansen ◽  
Philip Hansen ◽  
Anders F. Christensen ◽  
Charlotte Trampedach ◽  
Zoreh Rasti ◽  
...  

Radiology ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 164 (3) ◽  
pp. 851-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
J S Ross ◽  
T J Masaryk ◽  
M T Modic ◽  
H Bohlman ◽  
R Delamater ◽  
...  

Radiology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 250 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Carrino ◽  
Jon D. Lurie ◽  
Anna N. A. Tosteson ◽  
Tor D. Tosteson ◽  
Eugene J. Carragee ◽  
...  

1993 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 352-353
Author(s):  
A. Jackson ◽  
S.C. Beards ◽  
J. Holland ◽  
E.L. Horseman

1994 ◽  
Vol 162 (4) ◽  
pp. 893-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
J G Murray ◽  
J P Stack ◽  
J T Ennis ◽  
M Behan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document