Discrimination between Lumbar Intraspinal Stenosis and Foraminal Stenosis using Diffusion Tensor Imaging Parameters: Preliminary Results.
10.4184/asj.2016.10.2.327
- Author:
Yawara EGUCHI
1
;
Seiji OHTORI
;
Munetaka SUZUKI
;
Yasuhiro OIKAWA
;
Hajime YAMANAKA
;
Hiroshi TAMAI
;
Tatsuya KOBAYASHI
;
Sumihisa ORITA
;
Kazuyo YAMAUCHI
;
Miyako SUZUKI
;
Yasuchika AOKI
;
Atsuya WATANABE
;
Hirohito KANAMOTO
;
Kazuhisa TAKAHASHI
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Hospital Organization Shimoshizu National Hospital, Yotsukaido, Japan. yawara_eguchi@yahoo.co.jp
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Diffusion tensor imaging;
Lumbar foraminal stenosis;
Apparent diffusion coefficient;
Fractional anisotropy
- MeSH:
Anisotropy;
Constriction, Pathologic*;
Diagnosis;
Diffusion Tensor Imaging*;
Diffusion*;
Discrimination (Psychology)*;
Observational Study;
Retrospective Studies;
ROC Curve
- From:Asian Spine Journal
2016;10(2):327-334
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. PURPOSE: To examine fractional anisotropy (FA) values and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of damaged nerves to discriminate between lumbar intraspinal stenosis (IS) and foraminal stenosis (FS) using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: It is important in the selection of surgical procedure to discriminate between lumbar IS and FS, but such discrimination is difficult. METHODS: There were 9 cases of IS, 7 cases of FS, and 5 healthy controls. The regions of interest were established in the lumbar intraspinal zone (Iz), nerve root (N), and extraforaminal zone (Ez). The FA and ADC values were measured on the affected and unaffected sides of the nerves. The FA ratio and the ADC ratio were calculated as the affected side/unaffected side ×100 (%). RESULTS: In the Ez, the FA value was significantly lower in FS than in IS (p<0.01). FA ratio was significantly lower in FS than in IS for the Ez (p<0.01). In the Iz, the ADC value was significantly higher in IS than FS (p<0.01). ADC ratio was significantly higher in FS than in IS for the N and Ez (p<0.05). For the Ez, receiver operating characteristic analysis of parameters revealed that the FA values showed a higher accuracy for the diagnosis of FS than the ADC values, and the FA value cut-off value was 0.42 (sensitivity: 85.7%, false positive: 11.1%) and the FA ratio cut-off value was 83.9% (sensitivity: 85.7%, false positive: 22.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The low FA value in the extraforaminal zone suggests the presence of foraminal stenosis. When the FA value and FA ratio cut-off value were established as 0.42 and 83.9%, respectively, the accuracy was high for the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis. It may be possible to use DTI parameters to help in the discrimination between IS and FS.
