Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

EditorialEDITORIALS

Myelography: Still the Gold Standard

Gary M. Miller and William E. Krauss
American Journal of Neuroradiology March 2003, 24 (3) 298;
Gary M. Miller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William E. Krauss
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

In 1986, Modic et al (1) reported that 0.6-T MR imaging of the spine was equivalent to CT and myelography in the diagnosis of lumbar canal stenosis and herniated disk disease. They concluded that MR imaging could be viewed as an alternative to myelography. Since then, a steady decline has occurred in the number of myelograms obtained throughout the country. Speakers at national meetings discuss myelography “for historic interest only” or in the context of “malpractice” to discourage the practice of myelography. Institutions admitting to performing myelography are viewed with suspicion. This is unfortunate, because many institutions abandoned myelography in favor of MR imaging despite a paucity of good clinical studies comparing the two techniques. Neuroradiology fellows are no longer adequately trained in the techniques of myelography or the interpretation of myelograms.

A quality myelographic examination includes the combination of fluoroscopic observation, filming, thin-section CT, and use of contrast agent to exclude higher lesions. Many sites drop one or multiple components, decreasing the sensitivity and specificity of the examination and reducing the potential benefits. Advances in multidector CT with capabilities to acquire isotropic pixels and multiplanar reformats increase the resolution of the study far beyond that of MR imaging and superior to that of conventional CT. Perhaps studies comparing myelography to MR imaging have to be repeated with the addition of this new technology.

Despite advances in MR imaging of the spine, pulse sequences, and coil design that have been accomplished during the 16 years since the article by Modic et al was published, we have always found myelography (fluoroscopic observation, filming, and thin-section CT) to be helpful in the presurgical evaluation of degenerative diseases of the cervical and lumbar spine. The MR imaging examination is sometimes indeterminate and nondiagnostic and often shows many abnormalities that are difficult to correlate with clinical data. MR myelography is disappointing because of the lack of resolution to reliably diagnose root compression and the inability to provide dynamic and functional information. The myelogram best shows whether the changes seen on MR images result in nerve root compression or obstruction to the flow of contrast material. Sometimes it is the fluoroscopic impression or plain myelographic films that are the most diagnostic.

In this issue of the AJNR, Drs. Bartynski and Lin report that conventional myelography is more accurate than MR imaging or follow-up CT for detecting nerve root compression in the lateral recess. Conventional myelography correctly predicted impingement in 93% to 95% of the lateral recesses, whereas MR imaging underestimated root compression in 28% to 29% and follow-up CT underestimated root compression in 38% of the lateral recesses. Despite the shortcomings of the article, we agree with the conclusion presented by Bartynski and Lin that a myelographic study is useful for cases in which a strong clinical suspicion of nerve root compression is present and the MR images do not show the lesion or are not adequate to make this determination.

The use of surgical reports to confirm lateral recess compression is problematic; surgical impressions can be both biased and unreliable. In this article, the surgeons reported significant compression at every lateral recess explored (58 of 58 lateral recesses). This subjective assessment may have the effect of increasing the apparent sensitivity and specificity of myelography. Also, there is a high likelihood of selection bias; patients for whom there was a strong clinical suspicion of lateral recess syndrome who had nondiagnostic MR images were more likely to undergo myelography. Patients most likely to have lesions not visible on MR images underwent myelography; most patients with obvious lesions on MR images would not have undergone myelography.

Most surgeons recognize the superiority of CT myelography in visualizing bony pathologic abnormality in both the cervical and lumbar spine. However, MR imaging is a better screening study because it is less invasive, less expensive, and less labor intensive than is myelography. In most cases, MR imaging adequately defines the pathologic abnormality and allows for sound surgical decision making. Obtaining both studies for every surgical patient is not cost-effective. In clinical practice, surgeons request myelography for cases in which nerve root compression is strongly clinically suspected but for which MR imaging has failed to confirm the suspicion. The article by Bartynski and Lin supports the judicious use of myelography in such cases and emphasizes the need to train our neuroradiology fellows in the proper techniques of myelography and the interpretation of myelograms.

References

  1. ↵
    Modic MT, Masaryk T, Boumphrey F, Goormastic M, Bell G. Lumbar herniated disk disease and canal stenosis: prospective evaluation by surface coil MR, CT, and myelography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;147:757–765
    PubMed
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 24 (3)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 24, Issue 3
1 Mar 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Myelography: Still the Gold Standard
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
Gary M. Miller, William E. Krauss
Myelography: Still the Gold Standard
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2003, 24 (3) 298;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Myelography: Still the Gold Standard
Gary M. Miller, William E. Krauss
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2003, 24 (3) 298;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • MRI of the cervical spine with neck extension: is it useful?
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Teaching Lessons by MR CLEAN
  • Coffee Houses and Reading Rooms
  • Comeback Victory
Show more EDITORIALS

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire