Spinal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with repaired myelomeningocele: Comparison of modalities

Eugenio O Gerscovich, Lorelei Maslen, Michael S. Cronan, Virginia Poirier, Mark W. Anderson, Craig M McDonald, James E Boggan, Marija Ivanovic

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The goals of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of using ultrasonography of the spine in the follow-up evaluation of patients with repaired myelomeningocele at birth and to compare sonography with the accepted modality of magnetic resonance imaging. Over a period of 4 years we performed 165 sonographic studies in 101 patients; 107 sonographic studies had MR imaging results for comparison. We collected our data prospectively. The quality of the sonograms was good in 110 of 129 studies, acceptable in 17 of 129, and poor in two of 129. The sonographic examinations failed in 33 of 165 studies (20%). Concordant information was obtained between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the following percentage of studies: level of the distal end of the cord in 82%, position of the cord in the canal in 59%, presence of hydromyelia in 63%, cord duplication in 96%, adhesions in 16%, intradural mass in 37%, cord measurements in 85%, and dural sac measurements in 83%. At the lumbosacral level, we saw no cord pulsation in 57% of the studies in patients with cord adhesions and in 20% of those without adhesions. At the lower thoracic level, we saw no pulsation in 35% of the studies in patients with cord adhesions and in 7% of those without adhesions. Postoperative studies of cord release surgery in eight patients showed varied findings. We conclude that in those patients who have a spinal defect or interlaminar space allowing proper visualization of the lumbosacral spinal canal, ultrasound can provide fairly similar information to that obtained with magnetic resonance imaging of that area with no need for sedation and at a reduced cost. Ultrasonography seems more sensitive than magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of cord adhesions, which is particularly relevant in the diagnosis of tethering.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)655-664
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Volume18
Issue number9
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Meningomyelocele
magnetic resonance
Ultrasonography
adhesion
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
canals
tethering
sonograms
Spinal Canal
spine
surgery
Spine
Thorax
examination
Parturition
costs
Costs and Cost Analysis
evaluation
defects

Keywords

  • Myelomeningocele
  • Spina bifida
  • Spinal cord

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Acoustics and Ultrasonics

Cite this

Spinal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with repaired myelomeningocele : Comparison of modalities. / Gerscovich, Eugenio O; Maslen, Lorelei; Cronan, Michael S.; Poirier, Virginia; Anderson, Mark W.; McDonald, Craig M; Boggan, James E; Ivanovic, Marija.

In: Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 9, 1999, p. 655-664.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gerscovich, Eugenio O ; Maslen, Lorelei ; Cronan, Michael S. ; Poirier, Virginia ; Anderson, Mark W. ; McDonald, Craig M ; Boggan, James E ; Ivanovic, Marija. / Spinal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with repaired myelomeningocele : Comparison of modalities. In: Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 1999 ; Vol. 18, No. 9. pp. 655-664.
@article{a8761e8234b24f4f8719550849509461,
title = "Spinal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with repaired myelomeningocele: Comparison of modalities",
abstract = "The goals of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of using ultrasonography of the spine in the follow-up evaluation of patients with repaired myelomeningocele at birth and to compare sonography with the accepted modality of magnetic resonance imaging. Over a period of 4 years we performed 165 sonographic studies in 101 patients; 107 sonographic studies had MR imaging results for comparison. We collected our data prospectively. The quality of the sonograms was good in 110 of 129 studies, acceptable in 17 of 129, and poor in two of 129. The sonographic examinations failed in 33 of 165 studies (20{\%}). Concordant information was obtained between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the following percentage of studies: level of the distal end of the cord in 82{\%}, position of the cord in the canal in 59{\%}, presence of hydromyelia in 63{\%}, cord duplication in 96{\%}, adhesions in 16{\%}, intradural mass in 37{\%}, cord measurements in 85{\%}, and dural sac measurements in 83{\%}. At the lumbosacral level, we saw no cord pulsation in 57{\%} of the studies in patients with cord adhesions and in 20{\%} of those without adhesions. At the lower thoracic level, we saw no pulsation in 35{\%} of the studies in patients with cord adhesions and in 7{\%} of those without adhesions. Postoperative studies of cord release surgery in eight patients showed varied findings. We conclude that in those patients who have a spinal defect or interlaminar space allowing proper visualization of the lumbosacral spinal canal, ultrasound can provide fairly similar information to that obtained with magnetic resonance imaging of that area with no need for sedation and at a reduced cost. Ultrasonography seems more sensitive than magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of cord adhesions, which is particularly relevant in the diagnosis of tethering.",
keywords = "Myelomeningocele, Spina bifida, Spinal cord",
author = "Gerscovich, {Eugenio O} and Lorelei Maslen and Cronan, {Michael S.} and Virginia Poirier and Anderson, {Mark W.} and McDonald, {Craig M} and Boggan, {James E} and Marija Ivanovic",
year = "1999",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "655--664",
journal = "Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine",
issn = "0278-4297",
publisher = "American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spinal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with repaired myelomeningocele

T2 - Comparison of modalities

AU - Gerscovich, Eugenio O

AU - Maslen, Lorelei

AU - Cronan, Michael S.

AU - Poirier, Virginia

AU - Anderson, Mark W.

AU - McDonald, Craig M

AU - Boggan, James E

AU - Ivanovic, Marija

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - The goals of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of using ultrasonography of the spine in the follow-up evaluation of patients with repaired myelomeningocele at birth and to compare sonography with the accepted modality of magnetic resonance imaging. Over a period of 4 years we performed 165 sonographic studies in 101 patients; 107 sonographic studies had MR imaging results for comparison. We collected our data prospectively. The quality of the sonograms was good in 110 of 129 studies, acceptable in 17 of 129, and poor in two of 129. The sonographic examinations failed in 33 of 165 studies (20%). Concordant information was obtained between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the following percentage of studies: level of the distal end of the cord in 82%, position of the cord in the canal in 59%, presence of hydromyelia in 63%, cord duplication in 96%, adhesions in 16%, intradural mass in 37%, cord measurements in 85%, and dural sac measurements in 83%. At the lumbosacral level, we saw no cord pulsation in 57% of the studies in patients with cord adhesions and in 20% of those without adhesions. At the lower thoracic level, we saw no pulsation in 35% of the studies in patients with cord adhesions and in 7% of those without adhesions. Postoperative studies of cord release surgery in eight patients showed varied findings. We conclude that in those patients who have a spinal defect or interlaminar space allowing proper visualization of the lumbosacral spinal canal, ultrasound can provide fairly similar information to that obtained with magnetic resonance imaging of that area with no need for sedation and at a reduced cost. Ultrasonography seems more sensitive than magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of cord adhesions, which is particularly relevant in the diagnosis of tethering.

AB - The goals of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of using ultrasonography of the spine in the follow-up evaluation of patients with repaired myelomeningocele at birth and to compare sonography with the accepted modality of magnetic resonance imaging. Over a period of 4 years we performed 165 sonographic studies in 101 patients; 107 sonographic studies had MR imaging results for comparison. We collected our data prospectively. The quality of the sonograms was good in 110 of 129 studies, acceptable in 17 of 129, and poor in two of 129. The sonographic examinations failed in 33 of 165 studies (20%). Concordant information was obtained between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the following percentage of studies: level of the distal end of the cord in 82%, position of the cord in the canal in 59%, presence of hydromyelia in 63%, cord duplication in 96%, adhesions in 16%, intradural mass in 37%, cord measurements in 85%, and dural sac measurements in 83%. At the lumbosacral level, we saw no cord pulsation in 57% of the studies in patients with cord adhesions and in 20% of those without adhesions. At the lower thoracic level, we saw no pulsation in 35% of the studies in patients with cord adhesions and in 7% of those without adhesions. Postoperative studies of cord release surgery in eight patients showed varied findings. We conclude that in those patients who have a spinal defect or interlaminar space allowing proper visualization of the lumbosacral spinal canal, ultrasound can provide fairly similar information to that obtained with magnetic resonance imaging of that area with no need for sedation and at a reduced cost. Ultrasonography seems more sensitive than magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of cord adhesions, which is particularly relevant in the diagnosis of tethering.

KW - Myelomeningocele

KW - Spina bifida

KW - Spinal cord

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032824455&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032824455&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10478975

AN - SCOPUS:0032824455

VL - 18

SP - 655

EP - 664

JO - Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

JF - Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

SN - 0278-4297

IS - 9

ER -