Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the cervical spine: How many slices do you need?

Carlos V R Brown, Kelli H. Foulkrod, Andrew Reifsnyder, Eric Bui, Irene Lopez, Matthew Hummell, Ben Coopwood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Controversy exists regarding the correlation between CT and MRI for evaluation of the cervical spine. We hypothesize that newer-generation CT scanners will improve diagnostic accuracy and may obviate the need for MRI in patients with a normal CT.We compared the missed injury rate of four-slice CT and 64-slice CT performed to evaluate the cervical spine. We conducted a retrospective study from January 2004 to June 2008 of all blunt trauma patients who underwent both a CT and MRI to evaluate the cervical spine. One hundred six blunt trauma patients underwent both CT and MRI, including 43 with four-slice and 63 with 64-slice CT. CT missed three injuries (3%), all of which were clinically significant ligamentous injuries seen only on MRI. The 64-slice CT missed no injuries (0%), whereas the four-slice CT missed all three (7%) of the ligamentous injuries (P = 0.03). Older-generation CT scanners miss clinically significant injuries in blunt trauma patients and should not be independently relied on to evaluate the cervical spine. The newer 64-slice CT scan does not appear to miss clinically significant cervical spine injuries and may allow clearance of the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients without the addition of an MRI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)365-368
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Surgeon
Volume76
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 2010

Fingerprint

Spine
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Wounds and Injuries
Nonpenetrating Wounds
Retrospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Brown, C. V. R., Foulkrod, K. H., Reifsnyder, A., Bui, E., Lopez, I., Hummell, M., & Coopwood, B. (2010). Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the cervical spine: How many slices do you need? American Surgeon, 76(4), 365-368.

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the cervical spine : How many slices do you need? / Brown, Carlos V R; Foulkrod, Kelli H.; Reifsnyder, Andrew; Bui, Eric; Lopez, Irene; Hummell, Matthew; Coopwood, Ben.

In: American Surgeon, Vol. 76, No. 4, 04.2010, p. 365-368.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Brown, CVR, Foulkrod, KH, Reifsnyder, A, Bui, E, Lopez, I, Hummell, M & Coopwood, B 2010, 'Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the cervical spine: How many slices do you need?', American Surgeon, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 365-368.
Brown CVR, Foulkrod KH, Reifsnyder A, Bui E, Lopez I, Hummell M et al. Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the cervical spine: How many slices do you need? American Surgeon. 2010 Apr;76(4):365-368.
Brown, Carlos V R ; Foulkrod, Kelli H. ; Reifsnyder, Andrew ; Bui, Eric ; Lopez, Irene ; Hummell, Matthew ; Coopwood, Ben. / Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the cervical spine : How many slices do you need?. In: American Surgeon. 2010 ; Vol. 76, No. 4. pp. 365-368.
@article{00528a42983d4cff9541f736228f0262,
title = "Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the cervical spine: How many slices do you need?",
abstract = "Controversy exists regarding the correlation between CT and MRI for evaluation of the cervical spine. We hypothesize that newer-generation CT scanners will improve diagnostic accuracy and may obviate the need for MRI in patients with a normal CT.We compared the missed injury rate of four-slice CT and 64-slice CT performed to evaluate the cervical spine. We conducted a retrospective study from January 2004 to June 2008 of all blunt trauma patients who underwent both a CT and MRI to evaluate the cervical spine. One hundred six blunt trauma patients underwent both CT and MRI, including 43 with four-slice and 63 with 64-slice CT. CT missed three injuries (3{\%}), all of which were clinically significant ligamentous injuries seen only on MRI. The 64-slice CT missed no injuries (0{\%}), whereas the four-slice CT missed all three (7{\%}) of the ligamentous injuries (P = 0.03). Older-generation CT scanners miss clinically significant injuries in blunt trauma patients and should not be independently relied on to evaluate the cervical spine. The newer 64-slice CT scan does not appear to miss clinically significant cervical spine injuries and may allow clearance of the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients without the addition of an MRI.",
author = "Brown, {Carlos V R} and Foulkrod, {Kelli H.} and Andrew Reifsnyder and Eric Bui and Irene Lopez and Matthew Hummell and Ben Coopwood",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "365--368",
journal = "American Surgeon",
issn = "0003-1348",
publisher = "Southeastern Surgical Congress",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the cervical spine

T2 - How many slices do you need?

AU - Brown, Carlos V R

AU - Foulkrod, Kelli H.

AU - Reifsnyder, Andrew

AU - Bui, Eric

AU - Lopez, Irene

AU - Hummell, Matthew

AU - Coopwood, Ben

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - Controversy exists regarding the correlation between CT and MRI for evaluation of the cervical spine. We hypothesize that newer-generation CT scanners will improve diagnostic accuracy and may obviate the need for MRI in patients with a normal CT.We compared the missed injury rate of four-slice CT and 64-slice CT performed to evaluate the cervical spine. We conducted a retrospective study from January 2004 to June 2008 of all blunt trauma patients who underwent both a CT and MRI to evaluate the cervical spine. One hundred six blunt trauma patients underwent both CT and MRI, including 43 with four-slice and 63 with 64-slice CT. CT missed three injuries (3%), all of which were clinically significant ligamentous injuries seen only on MRI. The 64-slice CT missed no injuries (0%), whereas the four-slice CT missed all three (7%) of the ligamentous injuries (P = 0.03). Older-generation CT scanners miss clinically significant injuries in blunt trauma patients and should not be independently relied on to evaluate the cervical spine. The newer 64-slice CT scan does not appear to miss clinically significant cervical spine injuries and may allow clearance of the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients without the addition of an MRI.

AB - Controversy exists regarding the correlation between CT and MRI for evaluation of the cervical spine. We hypothesize that newer-generation CT scanners will improve diagnostic accuracy and may obviate the need for MRI in patients with a normal CT.We compared the missed injury rate of four-slice CT and 64-slice CT performed to evaluate the cervical spine. We conducted a retrospective study from January 2004 to June 2008 of all blunt trauma patients who underwent both a CT and MRI to evaluate the cervical spine. One hundred six blunt trauma patients underwent both CT and MRI, including 43 with four-slice and 63 with 64-slice CT. CT missed three injuries (3%), all of which were clinically significant ligamentous injuries seen only on MRI. The 64-slice CT missed no injuries (0%), whereas the four-slice CT missed all three (7%) of the ligamentous injuries (P = 0.03). Older-generation CT scanners miss clinically significant injuries in blunt trauma patients and should not be independently relied on to evaluate the cervical spine. The newer 64-slice CT scan does not appear to miss clinically significant cervical spine injuries and may allow clearance of the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients without the addition of an MRI.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950444044&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950444044&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 20420244

AN - SCOPUS:77950444044

VL - 76

SP - 365

EP - 368

JO - American Surgeon

JF - American Surgeon

SN - 0003-1348

IS - 4

ER -