The optimal radiologic method for assessing spinal canal compromise and cord compression in patients with cervical spinal cord injury. Part I: An evidence-based analysis of the published literature.

STUDY DESIGN

An evidence-based analysis of published radiologic criteria for assessing spinal canal compromise and cord compression in patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury.

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to determine whether literature-based guidelines could be established for accurate and objective assessment of spinal canal compromise and spinal cord compression after cervical spinal cord injury.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Before conducting multicenter trials to determine the efficacy of surgical decompression in cervical spinal cord injury, reliable and objective radiographic criteria to define and quantify spinal cord compression must be established.

METHODS

A computer-based search of the published English, German, and French language literature from 1966 through 1997 was performed using MEDLINE (U.S. National Library of Medicine database) to identify studies in which cervical spinal canal and cord size were radiographically assessed in a quantitative manner. Thirty-seven references were included for critical analysis.

RESULTS

Most studies dealt with degenerative disease, spondylosis, and stenosis; only 13 included patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury. Standard lateral radiographs were the most frequent imaging method used (23 studies). T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging were used to assess spinal cord compression in only 7 and 4 studies, respectively. Spinal cord size or compression were not precisely measured in any of the cervical trauma studies. Interobserver or intraobserver reliability of the radiologic measurements was assessed in only 7 (19%) of the 37 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there are few quantitative, reliable radiologic outcome measures for assessing spinal canal compromise or cord compression in patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury.