» Articles » PMID: 29863019

Dynamic Correlation of Diffusion Tensor Imaging and Neurological Function Scores in Beagles with Spinal Cord Injury

Overview
Date 2018 Jun 5
PMID 29863019
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Exploring the relationship between different structure of the spinal cord and functional assessment after spinal cord injury is important. Quantitative diffusion tensor imaging can provide information about the microstructure of nerve tissue and can quantify the pathological damage of spinal cord white matter and gray matter. In this study, a custom-designed spinal cord contusion-impactor was used to damage the T spinal cord of beagles. Diffusion tensor imaging was used to observe changes in the whole spinal cord, white matter, and gray matter, and the Texas Spinal Cord Injury Score was used to assess changes in neurological function at 3 hours, 24 hours, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after injury. With time, fractional anisotropy values after spinal cord injury showed a downward trend, and the apparent diffusion coefficient, mean diffusivity, and radial diffusivity first decreased and then increased. The apparent diffusion-coefficient value was highly associated with the Texas Spinal Cord Injury Score for the whole spinal cord (R = 0.919, P = 0.027), white matter (R = 0.932, P = 0.021), and gray matter (R = 0.882, P = 0.048). Additionally, the other parameters had almost no correlation with the score (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the highest and most significant correlation between diffusion parameters and neurological function was the apparent diffusion-coefficient value for white matter, indicating that it could be used to predict the recovery of neurological function accurately after spinal cord injury.

Citing Articles

Diffusion tensor imaging reveals brain structure changes in dogs after spinal cord injury.

Liu C, Yang D, Li J, Qin C, Zhang X, Liu J Neural Regen Res. 2022; 18(1):176-182.

PMID: 35799539 PMC: 9241425. DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.344839.


Effect of Value on Imaging Quality for Diffusion Tensor Imaging of the Spinal Cord at Ultrahigh Field Strength.

Bao S, Zhao C, Bao X, Rao J Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021:4836804.

PMID: 33506018 PMC: 7806383. DOI: 10.1155/2021/4836804.


Magnetization transfer and diffusion tensor imaging in dogs with intervertebral disk herniation.

Shinn R, Pancotto T, Stadler K, Werre S, Rossmeisl J J Vet Intern Med. 2020; 34(6):2536-2544.

PMID: 33006411 PMC: 7694818. DOI: 10.1111/jvim.15899.


Use of ebselen as a neuroprotective agent in rat spinal cord subjected to traumatic injury.

Slusarczyk W, Olakowska E, Larysz-Brysz M, Woszczycka-Korczynska I, Gendosz de Carrillo D, Weglarz W Neural Regen Res. 2019; 14(7):1255-1261.

PMID: 30804257 PMC: 6425832. DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.251334.


Dynamic changes in intramedullary pressure 72 hours after spinal cord injury.

Zhang X, Liu C, Yang D, Qin C, Dong X, Li D Neural Regen Res. 2019; 14(5):886-895.

PMID: 30688275 PMC: 6375044. DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.249237.

References
1.
Jones J, Cen S, Lebel R, Hsieh P, Law M . Diffusion tensor imaging correlates with the clinical assessment of disease severity in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and predicts outcome following surgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012; 34(2):471-8. PMC: 7965104. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3199. View

2.
Maxwell W, Domleo A, McColl G, Jafari S, Graham D . Post-acute alterations in the axonal cytoskeleton after traumatic axonal injury. J Neurotrauma. 2003; 20(2):151-68. DOI: 10.1089/08977150360547071. View

3.
Chang Y, Jung T, Yoo D, Hyun J . Diffusion tensor imaging and fiber tractography of patients with cervical spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2010; 27(11):2033-40. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2009.1265. View

4.
Budzik J, Balbi V, Le Thuc V, Duhamel A, Assaker R, Cotten A . Diffusion tensor imaging and fibre tracking in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Radiol. 2010; 21(2):426-33. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1927-z. View

5.
Sotak C . The role of diffusion tensor imaging in the evaluation of ischemic brain injury - a review. NMR Biomed. 2002; 15(7-8):561-9. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.786. View