Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Localization image from which the axial cervical (A) and thoracic (B) SC sections are prescribed. The inner solid white rectangular line represents the inner FOV, which was oversampled (dotted white line) to avoid aliasing.
- Fig 2.
Axial FA color maps of each intervertebral disc level and within the mid-vertebral body level along the entire cervical and thoracic SC in a typically developing subject (C1 to T12–L1 level). An example of GM at the mid-C5 level is shown with an arrow, and WM, with an arrowhead.
- Fig 3.
Sagittal reconstruction of FA color maps of 2 overlapping slabs of the same subject as shown in Fig 2. A, The cervical and upper thoracic regions (C1, arrow, to T5, arrowhead). B, The upper thoracic-through-conus regions (T4, arrow, to L1, arrowhead).
- Fig 4.
Linear fit plots showing the relationship among FA (A), MD (B), AD (C), and RD (D) and age along the cervical and thoracic SC (C1 to mid-L1) in typically developing pediatric subjects.
Tables
- Table 1:
Means of FA, MD, AD, and RD along the cervical and thoracic SC according to age groups
DTI Parameters Age Groups (yr) P Values 6–11 12–16 FA 0.54 ± 0.09 0.58 ± 0.10 .0193 MD 1.14 ± 0.26 0.91 ± 0.21 <.0001 AD 1.88 ± 0.38 1.58 ± 0.38 <.0001 RD 0.77 ± 0.23 0.58 ± 0.17 <.0001 - Table 2:
Means of FA, MD, AD, and RD according to different levels of the cervical and thoracic SC
DTI Parameters Cord Divisions CUP CMID CLOW TUP TMID TLOW FAa 0.60 ± 0.08 0.59 ± 0.07 0.54 ± 0.08 0.53 ± 0.09 0.60 ± 0.10 0.49 ± 0.09 MDb 1.06 ± 0.20 1.08 ± 0.15 1.15 ± 0.24 0.98 ± 0.32 1.05 ± 0.26 0.93 ± 0.27 ADc 1.85 ± 0.30 1.90 ± 0.20 1.89 ± 0.33 1.58 ± 0.50 1.83 ± 0.35 1.45 ± 0.41 RDd 0.66 ± 0.18 0.67 ± 0.15 0.78 ± 0.23 0.67 ± 0.26 0.66 ± 0.24 0.66 ± 0.23 Note:—CUP indicates upper cervical cord; CMID, middle cervical cord; CLOW, lower cervical cord, TUP, upper thoracic cord; TMID, middle thoracic cord; TLOW, lower thoracic cord.
↵a FA = CUP vs CMID: P = .3732; CUP vs CLOW: P < .0001; CMID vs CLOW: P <. 0001; TUP vs TMID: P < .0001; TUP vs TLOW: P < .0001; TMID vs TLOW: P < .0001.
↵b MD = CUP vs CMID: P = .1357; CUP vs CLOW: P < .0001; CMID vs CLOW: P = .0265; TUP vs TMID: P < .0001; TUP vs TLOW: P = .2665; TMID vs TLOW: P < .0001.
↵c AD = CUP vs TUP: P < .0001; CUP vs TLOW: P <. 0001; CUP vs TMID: P = .1485; CMID vs TUP: P <. 0001; CMID vs TMID: P = .0033; CMID vs TLOW: P < .0001; CLOW vs TUP: P < .0001; CLOW vs TMID: P = .0158; CLOW vs TLOW: P < .0001.
↵d RD = CUP vs TUP: P = .2707; CUP vs TLOW: P = .9320; CUP vs TMID: P = .1044; CMID vs TUP: P = .0198; CMID vs TMID: P = .0048; CMID vs TLOW: P = .1774; CLOW vs TUP: P < .0001; CLOW vs TMID: P <. 0001; CLOW vs TLOW: P < .0001.
- Table 3:
Test-retest repeatability for each DTI parameter per the cervical and thoracic SC
DTI Parameters Level ICC (95% CI) FA Cervical 0.86 (0.86–0.70) Thoracic 0.85 (0.85–0.67) MD Cervical 0.91 (0.91–0.79) Thoracic 0.89 (0.90–0.73) AD Cervical 0.91 (0.91–0.79) Thoracic 0.80 (0.83–0.55) RD Cervical 0.90 (0.90–0.77) Thoracic 0.92 (0.93–0.82) Note:—ICC indicates intraclass correlation coefficient.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging of neonatal Spinal Cord in clinical routine
- Atlas-Based Quantification of DTI Measures in a Typically Developing Pediatric Spinal Cord
- Quantification of DTI in the Pediatric Spinal Cord: Application to Clinical Evaluation in a Healthy Patient Population
- Zonally Magnified Oblique Multislice and Non-Zonally Magnified Oblique Multislice DWI of the Cervical Spinal Cord