MRI Underestimates Lumbar Spinal Canal Cross-sectional Area Compared to CT in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Overview

Journal J Orthop Surg Res

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2025 Mar 13

PMID 40075443

Authors

Raphael Lotan

Michael Shaulov

Itzik Lan

Mojahed Sakhnini

Max Zaidman

Oded Hershkovich

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common condition characterized by the narrowing of the spinal canal, often leading to neural compression. Accurate imaging is crucial for diagnosis and surgical planning, with MRI and CT being the primary modalities. While MRI excels in soft tissue visualization, CT is superior for assessing bony structures. This study compares lumbar spinal canal cross-sectional area measurements on MRI and CT in patients undergoing surgery for LSS.

Methods: Twenty patients with LSS who underwent lumbar decompression surgery after failed conservative treatment were included. Axial MRI and CT images from L1 to S1 levels were obtained and analyzed using Radiant DICOM Viewer. The spinal canal area was measured and compared between modalities. Statistical analyses assessed the measurement discrepancies, including paired t-tests and Pearson correlations.

Results: The mean difference in cross-sectional area between MRI and CT across all levels was 26.5 mm, with MRI consistently underestimating the canal area by 15.3%. The correlation between MRI and CT measurements was high (0.775-0.950), yet significant differences were found (p < 0.001). MRI underestimation was more pronounced in smaller spinal canals, though this trend was not statistically significant. Agreement between MRI-only evaluations and surgical findings was moderate (Cohen's Kappa = 44%, p = 0.035).

Conclusions: MRI's underestimation of spinal canal size compared to CT has implications for surgical planning, particularly in severe stenosis. A multimodal MRI and CT approach may improve diagnostic accuracy and surgical outcomes. Future research should involve larger cohorts to elucidate these findings further.

References

Saint-Louis L . Lumbar spinal stenosis assessment with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and myelography. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; (384):122-36. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200103000-00015. View

Schnebel B, Kingston S, Watkins R, Dillin W . Comparison of MRI to contrast CT in the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989; 14(3):332-7. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198903000-00015. View

Lonne G, Odegard B, Johnsen L, Solberg T, Kvistad K, Nygaard O . MRI evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis: is a rapid visual assessment as good as area measurement?. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(6):1320-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3248-4. View

Schulte T, Heidenreich J, Schilling A, Stendel R, Pietila T, Hopfenmuller W . Comparison of metric analysis of spinal structures, exemplarily of the ligamentum flavum, obtained with CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2004; 52(3):224-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2003.11.022. View

Suwankong N, Voorhout G, Hazewinkel H, Meij B . Agreement between computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and surgical findings in dogs with degenerative lumbosacral stenosis. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006; 229(12):1924-9. DOI: 10.2460/javma.229.12.1924. View

Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J . Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12:175. PMC: 3161920. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-175. View

Bartynski W, Lin L . Lumbar root compression in the lateral recess: MR imaging, conventional myelography, and CT myelography comparison with surgical confirmation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003; 24(3):348-60. PMC: 7973614. View

Alsaleh K, Ho D, Rosas-Arellano M, Charyk Stewart T, Gurr K, Bailey C . Radiographic assessment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: is MRI superior to CT?. Eur Spine J. 2016; 26(2):362-367. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4724-9. View

de Graaf I, Prak A, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Thomas S, Peul W, Koes B . Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(10):1168-76. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000216463.32136.7b. View

10.

Morita M, Miyauchi A, Okuda S, Oda T, Iwasaki M . Comparison between MRI and myelography in lumbar spinal canal stenosis for the decision of levels of decompression surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010; 24(1):31-6. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181d4c993. View

11.

Cheung J, Shigematsu H, Cheung K . Verification of measurements of lumbar spinal dimensions in T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging sequences. Spine J. 2013; 14(8):1476-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.054. View

12.

Eun S, Lee H, Lee S, Kim K, Liu W . MRI versus CT for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neuroradiol. 2011; 39(2):104-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2011.02.008. View