Clinico-radiological correlation in a cohort of cervical myelopathy patients

Though both clinical evaluation and MRI are complimentary in detection and precise localization of the level of lesion in patients with cervical myelopathy, there is paucity of data comparing segment specific clinical features with the MRI abnormalities in cervical myelopathy.

Thirty one patients with cervical myelopathy and abnormal MRI of the cervical spine (signal changes in the cord) admitted to the neurology and neurosurgery wards during the study period were included in the study. The patients were prospectively evaluated by a detailed neurological examination. Clinically, the site of lesion was determined by highest of the pyramidal, sensory or segmental features of involvement. The MRI lesions were categorized based on the vertebral level at which the abnormalities were seen. The patients were divided into three groups according to the site of lesion on MRI: (1) cervico-medullary (foramen magnum to C1) lesions (2) upper cervical (C2-C4) lesions and (3) lower cervical (C5-T1) lesions. Comparisons of clinical symptoms, signs and level of lesion with MRI abnormalities were done and the level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

Clinical evaluation showed limb weakness in all, sensory loss in 90%, sphincter disturbances in 67.7%, scissoring gait in 32.2%, diaphragmatic weakness in 12.9% of patients. Based on clinical examination the site of lesion was cervico-medullary in 9, upper cervical region in 4 and lower cervical region of involvement in five patients. The maximal antero-posterior extent of the lesion and neurological deficits were concordant (p-0.05). As compared to pyramidal signs or sensory abnormalities, segmental features - segmental sensory loss, weakness, wasting or 'reflex' loss - were most concordant with the MRI level of lesion (p - 0.03). Among 'motor', 'sensory' and 'reflex' levels, the 'reflex (DTR)' levels were most concordant with the MRI level of lesion (p - 0.04).

Segmental features form the foundation for clinical localization of the level of lesion. Though the clinical level of lesion and MRI level of lesion were discordant in 14 patients, clinical evaluation may still provide useful information.