ISSN: 1859 - 2872
The diagnostic significance of CT myelography and MRI in brachial plexus injuries
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Objective: To identify the significance of CT myelography and MRI in diagnosis of brachial plexus injuries. Subject and method: The study was performed on 40 patients suspected brachial plexus lesions, which were diagnosed by CT myelography and MRI 3.0 Tesla and compared with surgery from May 2015 to February 2017. It is a prospective, cross-sectional descriptive study. Result: CT myelography had high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of root avulsions from C5 to T1 (p<0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy rate of C5 avulsions on CT myelography were 89.2%, 66.7% and 87.5%, respectively; C6 avulsions were: 88.6%, 80.0% and 87.5% respectively; C7 avulsions were: 95.7%, 70.6% and 85.0%, respectively; C8 avulsions were: 76.9%, 81.5% and 80.0% respectively; T1 avulsions were: 66.7%, 97.2% and 94.9%, respectively; from C5 to T1 avulsions were: 100.0%, 50.0% and 97.5%, respectively. MRI had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy rate in diagnosis of C5 root avulsion/rupture were: 83.3%, 75%, and 82.5%, C6 root avulsion/rupture were: 91.9%, 66.7% and 90%, C7 root avulsion/rupture were: 96.2%, 57.1%, 82.5%, C8 root avulsion/rupture were: 71.4%, 73.1% and 72.5%; T1 root avulsion/rupture were: 60.0%, 91.4% and 87.5%, upper trunk lesion: 88.9%, 83.9% and 85%, middle trunk: 87.5%, 90.9% and 90.0%, lower trunk: 94.4%, 92.5% and 60.0%, compared with surgery. Conclusion: CT myelography and MRI are useful diagnostic imaging methods to diagnose brachial plexus lesions.
Article Details
References
2. Nguyễn Ngọc Trung (2019) Nghiên cứu đặc điểm hình ảnh và giá trị của cộng hưởng từ trong chẩn đoán tổn thương đám rối thần kinh cánh tay do chấn thương. Luận án Tiến sỹ, Viện Nghiên cứu khoa học Y Dược lâm sàng 108.
3. Bermejo N (2012) MR imaging of the brachial plexus: Anatomy and pathology. European Society of Radiology: 1-40.
4. Moran SL Steinmann SP, Shin AY (2005) Adult brachial plexus injuries: Mechanism, patterns of injury and physical diagnosis. Hand Clin 21(1): 13-24.
5. Upadhyaya V Kumar A, Pandey AK et al (2015) Magnetic resonance neurography of the brachial plexus. Indian journal of plastic surgery: Official publication of the association of plastic surgeons of India 48(2): 129-141.
6. Walker AT, Chaloupka JC, Lotbiniere AC et al (1996) Detection of nerve rootlet avulsion on CT myelography in patients with birth palsy and brachial plexus injury after trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167(5): 1283-1287.
7. Bertelli JA, Ghizoni MF (2006) Use of clinical signs and computed tomography myelography findings in detecting and excluding nerve root avulsion in complete brachial plexus palsy. J Neurosurg 105(6): 835-842.
8. Carvalho GA, Nikkhah G, Matthies C et al (1997) Diagnosis of root avulsions in traumatic brachial plexus injuries: Value of computerized tomography myelography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 86(1): 69-76.
9. Tse R, Nixon JN, Iyer RS et al (2014) The diagnostic value of CT myelography, MR myelography, and both in neonatal brachial plexus palsy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35(7): 1425-1432.
10. Doi K, Otsuka K, Okamoto Y et al (2002) Cervical nerve root avulsion in brachial plexus injuries: Magnetic resonance imaging classification and comparison with myelography and computerized tomography myelography. J Neurosurg 96(3): 277-284.
11. Yang J, Qin B, Fu G et al (2014) Modified pathological classification of brachial plexus root injury and its MR imaging characteristics. J Reconstr Microsurg 30(3): 171-178.
12. Yoshikawa T, Hayashi N, Yamamoto S et al (2006) Brachial plexus injury: Clinical manifestations, conventional imaging findings, and the latest imaging techniques. Radiographics 26(1): 133-143.
Article Sidebar
