Can anatomic level of injury on MRI predict neurological level in acute cervical XXXX ?

@entity1 @entity548 @entity4 @entity16 @entity1566 @entity130
BACKGROUND: Determining @entity16 ( @entity16 ) is of paramount importance after @entity1566 ( @entity1566 ), although its accuracy depends upon the reliability of the neurologic examination. Here, we determine if anatomic location of cervical @entity1566 by MRI (MRI level of injury) can predict @entity16 in the acute traumatic setting. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of @entity1566 @entity1 with macroscopic evidence of cervical @entity1566 from non-penetrating @entity130 , all of whom had undergone cervical spine MRI and complete neurologic testing. The recorded MRI information included cord lesion type (intra-axial @entity4 , @entity548 ) and MRI locations of upper and lower lesion boundary, as well as lesion epicenter. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess the relationship between MRI levels of @entity130 . RESULTS: All five MRI parameters, namely (1) upper and (2) lower boundaries of cord @entity4 , (3) lesion epicenter, and (4) upper and (5) lower boundaries of cord @entity548 demonstrated statistically significant, positive correlations with @entity16 . The MRI locations of upper and lower boundary of @entity548 were found to have the strongest correlation with @entity16 (r = 0.72 and 0.61, respectively; p < 0.01). A weaker (low to moderate) correlation existed between lower boundary of cord @entity4 and @entity16 (r = 0.30; p < 0.01). Upper boundary of cord @entity548 on MRI demonstrated the best agreement with @entity16 (mean difference 0.03    0.73; p < 0.01) by Bland-Altman analysis. CONCLUSIONS: MRI level of injury has the potential to serve as a surrogate for @entity16 in instances where the neurologic examination is either unavailable or unreliable.
