Acute Cervical Spine Injuries: Prospective MR Imaging Assessment at a Level 1 Trauma Center

PURPOSE: To determine the weighted average sensitivity of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the prospective detection of acute neck injury and to compare these findings with those of a comprehensive conventional radiographic assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conventional radiography and MR imaging were performed in 199 patients presenting to a level 1 trauma center with suspected cervical spine injury. Weighted sensitivities and specificities were calculated, and a weighted average across eight vertebral levels from C1 to T1 was formed. Fourteen parameters indicative of acute injury were tabulated.

RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients had 172 acute cervical injuries. MR imaging depicted 136 (79%) acute abnormalities and conventional radiography depicted 39 (23%). For assessment of acute fractures, MR images (weighted average sensitivity, 43%; CI: 21%, 66%) were comparable to conventional radiographs (weighted average sensitivity, 48%; CI: 30%, 65%). MR imaging was superior to conventional radiography in the evaluation of pre- or paravertebral hemorrhage or edema, anterior or posterior longitudinal ligament injury, traumatic disk herniation, cord edema, and cord compression. Cord injuries were associated with cervical spine spondylosis (P < .05), acute fracture (P < .001), and canal stenosis (P < .001).

CONCLUSION: MR imaging is more accurate than radiography in the detection of a wide spectrum of neck injuries, and further study is warranted of its potential effect on medical decision making, clinical outcome, and cost-effectiveness.


  • 1 Vandemark RM. Radiology of the cervical spine in trauma patients: practice pitfalls and recommendations for improving efficiency and communication. AJR 1990; 155:465-472. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Reid DC, Henderson R, Sabor L, Miller JDR. Etiology and clinical course of missed spine fractures. J Trauma 1987; 27:980-986. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mace SE. Emergency evaluation of cervical spine injuries: CT versus plain radiographs. Ann Emerg Med 1985; 10:973-975. Google Scholar
  • 4 Mirvis SE, Diaconis JN, Chirico PA, Reiner BI, Joslyn JN, Militello P. Protocol-driven radiologic evaluation of suspected cervical spine injury: efficacy study. Radiology 1989; 170:831-834. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McArdle CB, Crofford MJ, Mirfakhrace M, Amparo EG, Calhoun JS. Surface coil MR of spinal trauma: preliminary experience. AJNR 1986; 7:885-893. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kulkarni MV, McArdle CB, Kopanicky D, et al. Acute spinal cord injury: MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 1987; 164:837-843. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Goldberg AL, Rothfus WE, Deeb ZL, et al. The impact of magnetic resonance on the diagnostic evaluation of cervicothoracic spinal trauma. Skeletal Radiol 1988; 17:89-95. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mirvis SE, Geisler FH, Jelinek JJ, Joslyn JN, Gellad F. Acute cervical spine trauma: evaluation with 1.5-T MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 166:807-816. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Manelfe C. Magnetic resonance imaging of the spinal cord. Diagn Intervent Radiol 1989; 1:3-14. Google Scholar
  • 10 Flanders AE, Schaefer DM, Doan HT, Mishkin MM, Gonzalez CF, Northrup BE. Acute cervical spine trauma: correlation of MR imaging findings with degree of neurologic deficit. Radiology 1990; 177:25-33. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Orrison WW, Jr, Stimac GK, Stevens EA, et al. Comparison of CT, low-field-strength MR imaging, and high-field-strength MR imaging: work in progress. Radiology 1991; 181:121-127. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 El-Khoury GY, Kathol MH, Daniel WW. Imaging of acute injuries of the cervical spine: value of plain radiography, CT and MR imaging. AJR 1995; 164:43-50. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Flanders AE, Spettell CM, Tartaglino LM, Friedman DP, Herbison GJ. Forecasting motor recovery after cervical spinal cord injury: value of MR imaging. Radiology 1996; 201:649-655. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Benzel EC, Hart BL, Ball PA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of patients with occult cervical spine injury. J Neurosurg 1996; 85:824-829. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, 1981. Google Scholar
  • 16 Hackney DB, Asato R, Joseph PM, et al. Hemorrhage and edema in acute spinal cord compression: demonstration by MR imaging. Radiology 1986; 161:387-390. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Schaefer DM, Flanders AE, Doan HT, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of acute cervical spine trauma: correlation with severity of neurologic injury. Spine 1989; 14:1090-1095. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 White AA, Southwick WO. Clinical instability in the lower cervical spine: a review of past and current concepts. Spine 1976; 1:15-27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lewis LM, Docherty M, Ruoff BE, Fortney JP, Keltner RA, Jr, Britton P. Flexion-extension views in the evaluation of cervical-spine injuries. Ann Emerg Med 1991; 20:117-121. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hackney DB. Denominators of spinal cord injury. Radiology 1990; 177:18-20. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Regenbogen VS, Rogers LF, Atlas SW, Kim KS. Cervical spinal cord injuries in patients with cervical spondylosis. AJR 1986; 146:277-284. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cintron E, Gilula LA, Murphy WA, Gehweiler JA. The widened disk space: a sign of cervical hyperextension injury. Radiology 1981; 141:639-644. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Orrison WW, Jr, Benzd EC, Willis BK, Hart BL, Espinosa MC. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of acute spine trauma. Emerg Radiol 1995; 2:120-128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Oct 1999