Spinal dysraphism: MRI evaluation
Keywords:Spinal dysraphism, Neural tube defects (NTD), Congenital spinal disorders, MRI spinal dysraphism
Background: Spinal dysraphism refers to the entire range of spinal column and neuraxis anomalies. The objective was to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in characterizing the congenital and developmental disorders of spine.
Methods: Fifty (50) patients with clinically suspected spinal dysraphism were included in the study. All the patients were made to undergo MRI spine using 1.5 Tesla MRI, manufactured by GE, SIGNA HDX MACHINE. The findings of MRI spine were assessed and analyzed.
Results: Out of 50 patients included in the study; 24 were male (48%) and remaining 26 were female (52%). Congenital spinal lesions were more prevalent in the age group 0-20 years (70%). Lesions without subcutaneous masses (62%) were more common than the lesions with subcutaneous masses (38%). The commonest location for the congenital spinal lesions was lumbar region (54%). Congenital spinal lesions without spinal curvature abnormalities (58%) were more common than the lesions with spinal curvature abnormalities (42%). Vertebral anomalies (78%) were the commonest spinal anomalies in patients with congenital spinal lesions; spina bifida was the commonest (46%). Diastematomyelia was more prevalent in the age group 0-10 years (41.66%) and in female population (58.33%).
Conclusion: Thus we conclude that Spinal dysraphism were common in young females, with commonest anomaly being vertebral anomaly (Spina bifida), commonest location is lumbar region, Diastematomyelia common in young aged female. Magnetic resonance imaging is an accurate, noninvasive, safe and advanced modality for evaluation of the congenital spinal disorders and help in better management of these patients with prompt and accurate diagnosis.
Tortori-Donati P, Rossi A, Cama A. Spinal dysraphism: a review of neuroradiological features with embryological correlations and proposal
for a new classification. Neuroradiol. 2000;42:471–91.
Bames PD. Developmental abnormalities of the spine and spinal neuraxis. In, welert S.M editor. MRI in pediatric neuroradiology, 1st edition; 1992; 862-865.
Tortori-Donati P, Rossi A, Biancheri R, Cama A. Magnetic resonance imaging of spinal dysraphism. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;12:375–409.
De Jong TP, Boemers TM, Schouten A, van Gool JD, de Maat-Bleeker F, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA. Peroperative anaphylactic reactions due to latex allergy. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993;137:1934–6
D’Addario V, Rossi AC, Pinto V, Pintucci A, Di Cagno L. Comparison of six sonographic signs in the prenatal diagnosis of spina bifida. J Perinat Med. 2008;36(4):330-34.
Makary R, Wolfson D, Dasilva V, Mohammadi A, Shuja S. Intramedullary mature teratoma of the cervical spinal cord at C1-2 associated with occult spinal dysraphism in an adult. Case report and review of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(6):579-84.
Musson RE, Warren DJ, Bickle I, Connolly DJ, Griffiths PD. Imaging in childhood scoliosis: a pictorial review. Postgrad Med J. 2010;86:419-27.
Paolo TD. Magnetic resonance imaging of spinal dysraphism. Topics In Magnetic resonance imaging. 2001;12(6):375-409.
Kemal Sarica, et al. Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Occult Spinal Dysraphism in 47 Children. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. 2003;37(4):329-34.
Kumar R. Spinal dysraphism: Trends in Northern India. Paediatric neurosurgery. 2003;38:133-45.
Jindal A, Mahapatra AK. Spinal congenital dermal sinus: an experience of 23 cases over 7 years. Neurol India. 2001;49(3):243-6.
Delapaz RL. Congenital anamolies the of the spine and spinal cord. In, enzmann, D.R, editor. Magnetic Resonance of Spine, 1st edition. Philadelphia: The C.V Mosby company; 1990; 732-735.
Sattar M, Bannister C, Turnbull I. Occult spinal dysraphism: The common combination of lesions and the clinical manifestations in 50 patients. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 1997;6:10–14.
Pang D, Dias MS, Ahab-barmada M. “split cord malformation Part I: a unified theory of embryogenesis for double spinal cord malformations”. Neurosurgery. 1992;31:451–80.