Abstract

BackgroundPrevious data using T1-weighted MRI demonstrated neck muscle fat infiltration (MFI) in patients with poor functional recovery following whiplash. Such findings do not occur in those with milder symptoms of whiplash, chronic non-traumatic neck pain or healthy controls, suggesting traumatic factors play a role. Muscle degeneration could potentially represent a quantifiable marker of poor recovery, but the temporal constraints of running a T1-weighted sequence and performing the subsequent analysis for muscle fat may be a barrier for clinical translation. The purpose of this preliminary study was to evaluate, quantify and compare MFI for the cervical multifidus muscles with T1-weighted imaging and a more rapid quantitative 3D multi-echo gradient echo (GRE) Dixon based method in healthy subjects.Methods5 asymptomatic participants with no history of neck pain underwent cervical spine MRI with a Siemens 3 Tesla system. The muscle and fat signal intensities on axial spin-echo T1-weighted images were quantitatively classified for the cervical multifidii from C3-C7, bilaterally. Additional axial GRE Dixon based data for fat and water quantification were used for comparison via paired t-tests. Inter-tester reliability for fat and water measures with GRE images were examined using 1) Pearson’s Intra-class correlation coefficient 2) Bland-Altman Plots and 3) Lin’s-Concordance Coefficient. P < 0.05 was used to indicate significance.ResultsTotal mean (SD) MFI (C3-C7) for the multifidii obtained with T1-weighted imaging and GRE were 18.4% (3.3) (range 14-22%) and 18.8% (2.9) (range 15-22%), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients for inter-tester reliability on the GRE sequences for the C3-C7 multifidii ranged from .83 - .99, indicating high levels of agreement with segmental MFI measures. Bland-Altman Plots revealed all data points were within 2 SDs and concordance was established between 2-blinded raters, suggesting good agreement between two raters measuring fat and water with GRE imaging.ConclusionsResults of this preliminary study demonstrate reliability between 2 raters of varying experience for MRI analysis of MFI with 3D GRE MRI. The quantification of MFI for healthy cervical musculature is comparable to T1-weighted images. Inclusion of larger samples of symptomatic data and histological comparison with the reference standard biopsy is warranted.

Highlights

  • Previous data using T1-weighted Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated neck muscle fat infiltration (MFI) in patients with poor functional recovery following whiplash

  • Cross-sectional investigations have determined significantly lower magnitudes of neck MFI in those with non-traumatic, insidious onset pain when compared to those with chronic whiplash related pain [3], suggesting traumatic factors play a role in their development

  • Findings of muscle degeneration in those with higher levels of pain and disability following whiplash injury from a motor vehicle crash could potentially represent a quantifiable marker of poor recovery

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Previous data using T1-weighted MRI demonstrated neck muscle fat infiltration (MFI) in patients with poor functional recovery following whiplash Such findings do not occur in those with milder symptoms of whiplash, chronic non-traumatic neck pain or healthy controls, suggesting traumatic factors play a role. Muscle degeneration could potentially represent a quantifiable marker of poor recovery, but the temporal constraints of running a T1-weighted sequence and performing the subsequent analysis for muscle fat may be a barrier for clinical translation The purpose of this preliminary study was to evaluate, quantify and compare MFI for the cervical multifidus muscles with T1-weighted imaging and a more rapid quantitative 3D multi-echo gradient echo (GRE) Dixon based method in healthy subjects. A potential challenge in translating such findings remains the temporal constraints of running the longer T1-weighted sequence and performing a quantitative analysis for MFI especially when considering patient throughput in a busy radiology practice

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.