AC Portal
Variant: 1   Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI spine area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI spine area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CT myelography spine area of interest May Be Appropriate Varies
CT spine area of interest with IV contrast May Be Appropriate Varies
CT spine area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate Varies
Arteriography spine area of interest Usually Not Appropriate Varies
Radiography spine area of interest Usually Not Appropriate Varies
MRA spine area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRA spine area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRA spine area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI spine area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT spine area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CTA spine area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Variant: 2   Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI spine area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI spine area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CT myelography spine area of interest May Be Appropriate Varies
CT spine area of interest with IV contrast May Be Appropriate Varies
CT spine area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate Varies
Arteriography spine area of interest Usually Not Appropriate Varies
Radiography spine area of interest Usually Not Appropriate Varies
MRA spine area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRA spine area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRA spine area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI spine area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT spine area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CTA spine area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Panel Members
Vikas Agarwal, MDa; Lubdha M. Shah, MDb; Matthew S. Parsons, MDc; Daniel J. Boulter, MDd; R. Carter Cassidy, MDe; Troy A. Hutchins, MDf; Jamlik-Omari Johnson, MDg; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MDh; Majid A. Khan, MD, MBBSi; David S. Liebeskind, MDj; Toshio Moritani, MD, PhDk; A. Orlando Ortiz, MD, MBAl; Charles Reitman, MDm; Vinil N. Shah, MDn; Laura A. Snyder, MDo; Vincent M. Timpone, MDp; Amanda S. Corey, MDq.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Special Imaging Considerations
Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

  • There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

OR

  • There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
A. MRI Spine
Variant 1: Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
B. MRA Spine
Variant 1: Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
C. CT Myelography Spine
Variant 1: Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
D. CT Spine
Variant 1: Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
E. CTA Spine
Variant 1: Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
F. Radiography Spine
Variant 1: Acute onset myelopathy. Initial imaging.
G. Arteriography
Variant 2: Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
Variant 2: Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
A. MRI Spine
Variant 2: Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
B. MRA Spine
Variant 2: Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
C. CT Myelography Spine
Variant 2: Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
D. CT Spine
Variant 2: Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
E. CTA Spine
Variant 2: Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
F. Radiography Spine
Variant 2: Chronic or progressive myelopathy. Initial imaging.
G. Arteriography
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Kranz PG, Amrhein TJ. Imaging Approach to Myelopathy: Acute, Subacute, and Chronic. [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am. 57(2):257-279, 2019 Mar.
2. Tettenborn B, Hagele-Link S. Spinal Cord Disorders. [Review]. Eur Neurol. 74(3-4):141-6, 2015.
3. Bhattacharyya S.. Spinal Cord Disorders: Myelopathy. [Review]. Am J Med. 131(11):1293-1297, 2018 Nov.
4. Candy S, Chang G, Andronikou S. Acute myelopathy or cauda equina syndrome in HIV-positive adults in a tuberculosis endemic setting: MRI, clinical, and pathologic findings. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 35(8):1634-41, 2014 Aug.
5. El Mekabaty A, Pardo CA, Gailloud P. The yield of initial conventional MRI in 115 cases of angiographically confirmed spinal vascular malformations. J Neurol. 264(4):733-739, 2017 Apr.
6. Oh JK, Lee DY, Kim TY, et al. Thoracolumbar extradural arachnoid cysts: a study of 14 consecutive cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2012;154(2):341-348; discussion 348.
7. Papadopoulos A, Gouliamos A, Trakadas S, et al. MRI in the investigation of patients with myelopathy thought to be due to multiple sclerosis. Neuroradiology. 1995;37(5):384-387.
8. Pinto WB, de Souza PV, de Albuquerque MV, Dutra LA, Pedroso JL, Barsottini OG. Clinical and epidemiological profiles of non-traumatic myelopathies. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 74(2):161-5, 2016 Feb.
9. Watts J, Box GA, Galvin A, Van Tonder F, Trost N, Sutherland T. Magnetic resonance imaging of intramedullary spinal cord lesions: a pictorial review. [Review]. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 58(5):569-81, 2014 Oct.
10. Young WB. The clinical diagnosis of myelopathy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1994;15(3):250-254.
11. Takenaka S, Kaito T, Hosono N, et al. Neurological manifestations of thoracic myelopathy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 134(7):903-12, 2014 Jul.
12. Mariano R, Flanagan EP, Weinshenker BG, Palace J. A practical approach to the diagnosis of spinal cord lesions. [Review]. Pract. neurol.. 18(3):187-200, 2018 Jun.
13. Karnaze MG, Gado MH, Sartor KJ, Hodges FJ, 3rd. Comparison of MR and CT myelography in imaging the cervical and thoracic spine. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150(2):397-403.
14. Song KJ, Choi BW, Kim GH, Kim JR. Clinical usefulness of CT-myelogram comparing with the MRI in degenerative cervical spinal disorders: is CTM still useful for primary diagnostic tool?. J Spinal Disord Tech. 22(5):353-7, 2009 Jul.
15. Grams AE, Gempt J, Forschler A. Comparison of spinal anatomy between 3-Tesla MRI and CT-myelography under healthy and pathological conditions. Surg Radiol Anat. 32(6):581-5, 2010 Jul.
16. Beckmann NM, West OC, Nunez D, Jr., et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Spine Trauma. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S264-S85.
17. Tan Z, Zhou Y, Li X, et al. Brain magnetic resonance imaging, cerebrospinal fluid, and autoantibody profile in 118 patients with neuropsychiatric lupus. Clin Rheumatol. 37(1):227-233, 2018 Jan.
18. Ahmadli U, Ulrich NH, Yuqiang Y, Nanz D, Sarnthein J, Kollias SS. Early detection of cervical spondylotic myelopathy using diffusion tensor imaging: Experiences in 1.5-tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroradiol. j.. 28(5):508-14, 2015 Oct.
19. Ellingson BM, Salamon N, Hardy AJ, Holly LT. Prediction of Neurological Impairment in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy using a Combination of Diffusion MRI and Proton MR Spectroscopy. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 10(10):e0139451, 2015.
20. Guan X, Fan G, Wu X, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging studies of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. PLoS ONE. 10(2):e0117707, 2015.
21. Shen C, Xu H, Xu B, et al. Value of conventional MRI and diffusion tensor imaging parameters in predicting surgical outcome in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabil. 31(3):525-532, 2018.
22. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology. ACR– ASNR– SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Myelography and Cisternography. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=64+&releaseId=2
23. Shah LM, Jennings JW, Kirsch CFE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Management of Vertebral Compression Fractures. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 15(11S):S347-S364, 2018 Nov.
24. Domenicucci M, Mancarella C, Santoro G, et al. Spinal epidural hematomas: personal experience and literature review of more than 1000 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;27:198-208.
25. Jain NK, Dao K, Ortiz AO. Radiologic evaluation and management of postoperative spine paraspinal fluid collections. [Review]. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 24(2):375-89, 2014 May.
26. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Follow-up of Malignant or Aggressive Musculoskeletal Tumors. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69428/Narrative/.
27. Vargas MI, Gariani J, Sztajzel R, et al. Spinal cord ischemia: practical imaging tips, pearls, and pitfalls. [Review]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 36(5):825-30, 2015 May.
28. Zalewski NL, Rabinstein AA, Krecke KN, et al. Spinal cord infarction: Clinical and imaging insights from the periprocedural setting. J Neurol Sci. 388:162-167, 2018 05 15.
29. Donauer E, Aguilar Perez M, Jangid N, Tomandl B, Ganslandt O, Henkes H. Spontaneous Cervical Intramedullary and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage due to a Sulco-Commissural Artery Aneurysm. Clin Neuroradiol. 29(4):777-781, 2019 Dec.
30. Matsui T, Taniguchi T, Saitoh T, et al. Hematomyelia caused by ruptured intramedullary spinal artery aneurysm associated with extramedullary spinal arteriovenous fistula--case report. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 47(5):233-6, 2007 May.
31. AbdelRazek MA, Mowla A, Farooq S, Silvestri N, Sawyer R, Wolfe G. Fibrocartilaginous embolism: a comprehensive review of an under-studied cause of spinal cord infarction and proposed diagnostic criteria. J Spinal Cord Med 2016;39:146-54.
32. Tessitore E, Broc N, Mekideche A, et al. A modern multidisciplinary approach to patients suffering from cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Sci. 63(1):19-29, 2019 Feb.
33. Abdulhadi MA, Perno JR, Melhem ER, Nucifora PG. Characteristics of spondylotic myelopathy on 3D driven-equilibrium fast spin echo and 2D fast spin echo magnetic resonance imaging: a retrospective cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 9(7):e100964, 2014.
34. Ellingson BM, Salamon N, Holly LT. Advances in MR imaging for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. [Review]. Eur Spine J. 24 Suppl 2:197-208, 2015 Apr.
35. Kovalova I, Kerkovsky M, Kadanka Z, et al. Prevalence and Imaging Characteristics of Nonmyelopathic and Myelopathic Spondylotic Cervical Cord Compression. Spine. 41(24):1908-1916, 2016 Dec 15.
36. Puzzilli F, Mastronardi L, Ruggeri A, Lunardi P. Intramedullary increased MR signal intensity and its relation to clinical features in cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Sci. 1999;43(2):135-139; discussion 139.
37. Avadhani A, Rajasekaran S, Shetty AP. Comparison of prognostic value of different MRI classifications of signal intensity change in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2010;10(6):475-485.
38. Nouri A, Martin AR, Kato S, Reihani-Kermani H, Riehm LE, Fehlings MG. The Relationship Between MRI Signal Intensity Changes, Clinical Presentation, and Surgical Outcome in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Analysis of a Global Cohort. Spine. 42(24):1851-1858, 2017 Dec 15.
39. Salem HM, Salem KM, Burget F, Bommireddy R, Klezl Z. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the prediction of outcome following surgical intervention in 93 patients using T1- and T2-weighted MRI scans. Eur Spine J. 24(12):2930-5, 2015 Dec.
40. Seki S, Kawaguchi Y, Nakano M, et al. Clinical significance of high intramedullary signal on T2-weighted cervical flexion-extension magnetic resonance imaging in cervical myelopathy. J Orthop Sci. 20(6):973-7, 2015 Nov.
41. Uchida K, Nakajima H, Takeura N, et al. Prognostic value of changes in spinal cord signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. Spine J. 14(8):1601-10, 2014 Aug 01.
42. Flanagan EP, Krecke KN, Marsh RW, Giannini C, Keegan BM, Weinshenker BG. Specific pattern of gadolinium enhancement in spondylotic myelopathy. Ann Neurol. 76(1):54-65, 2014 Jul.
43. Ozawa H, Sato T, Hyodo H, et al. Clinical significance of intramedullary Gd-DTPA enhancement in cervical myelopathy. Spinal Cord. 48(5):415-22, 2010 May.
44. Hayashi D, Roemer FW, Mian A, Gharaibeh M, Muller B, Guermazi A. Imaging features of postoperative complications after spinal surgery and instrumentation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199(1):W123-9, 2012 Jul.
45. Kister I, Johnson E, Raz E, Babb J, Loh J, Shepherd TM. Specific MRI findings help distinguish acute transverse myelitis of Neuromyelitis Optica from spinal cord infarction. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 9:62-7, 2016 Sep.
46. Nogueira RG, Ferreira R, Grant PE, et al. Restricted diffusion in spinal cord infarction demonstrated by magnetic resonance line scan diffusion imaging. Stroke. 43(2):532-5, 2012 Feb.
47. Zecca C, Cereda C, Wetzel S, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in acute demyelinating myelopathy. Neuroradiology. 54(6):573-8, 2012 Jun.
48. Vuong SM, Jeong WJ, Morales H, Abruzzo TA. Vascular Diseases of the Spinal Cord: Infarction, Hemorrhage, and Venous Congestive Myelopathy. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 37(5):466-81, 2016 Oct.
49. Gass A, Back T, Behrens S, Maras A. MRI of spinal cord infarction. Neurology. 54(11):2195, 2000 Jun 13.
50. Thurnher MM, Bammer R. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in spinal cord ischemia. Neuroradiology. 48(11):795-801, 2006 Nov.
51. Andre JB, Bammer R. Advanced diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging techniques of the human spinal cord. [Review]. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 21(6):367-78, 2010 Dec.
52. Chee CG, Park KS, Lee JW, et al. MRI Features of Aquaporin-4 Antibody-Positive Longitudinally Extensive Transverse Myelitis: Insights into the Diagnosis of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 39(4):782-787, 2018 Apr.
53. Costallat BL, Ferreira DM, Costallat LT, Appenzeller S. Myelopathy in systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical, laboratory, radiological and progression findings in a cohort of 1,193 patients. Rev Bras Reumatol (Rio J). 56(3):240-51, 2016 May-Jun.
54. Durel CA, Marignier R, Maucort-Boulch D, et al. Clinical features and prognostic factors of spinal cord sarcoidosis: a multicenter observational study of 20 BIOPSY-PROVEN patients. Journal of Neurology. 263(5):981-990, 2016 May.
55. Flanagan EP, Kaufmann TJ, Krecke KN, et al. Discriminating long myelitis of neuromyelitis optica from sarcoidosis. Annals of Neurology. 79(3):437-47, 2016 Mar.
56. Isoda H, Ramsey RG. MR imaging of acute transverse myelitis (myelopathy). Radiat Med. 1998;16(3):179-186.
57. Mok CC, Lau CS, Chan EY, Wong RW. Acute transverse myelopathy in systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical presentation, treatment, and outcome. J Rheumatol. 1998;25(3):467-473.
58. Quintanilla-Gonzalez L, Atisha-Fregoso Y, Llorente L, Fragoso-Loyo H. Myelitis in systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical characteristics and effect in accrual damage. A single-center experience. Lupus. 26(3):248-254, 2017 Mar.
59. Uygunoglu U, Zeydan B, Ozguler Y, et al. Myelopathy in Behcet's disease: The Bagel Sign. Ann Neurol. 82(2):288-298, 2017 Aug.
60. Wendebourg MJ, Nagy S, Derfuss T, Parmar K, Schlaeger R. Magnetic resonance imaging in immune-mediated myelopathies. [Review]. J Neurol. 2019 Jan 29.
61. Dobson R, Giovannoni G. Multiple sclerosis - a review. [Review]. Eur J Neurol. 26(1):27-40, 2019 01.
62. Kearney H, Miller DH, Ciccarelli O. Spinal cord MRI in multiple sclerosis--diagnostic, prognostic and clinical value. [Review]. Nat Rev Neurol. 11(6):327-38, 2015 Jun.
63. Filippi M, Rocca MA, Ciccarelli O, et al. MRI criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines. [Review]. Lancet neurol.. 15(3):292-303, 2016 Mar.
64. Jurynczyk M, Craner M, Palace J. Overlapping CNS inflammatory diseases: differentiating features of NMO and MS. [Review]. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 86(1):20-5, 2015 Jan.J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 86(1):20-5, 2015 Jan.
65. Kim HJ, Paul F, Lana-Peixoto MA, et al. MRI characteristics of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: an international update. [Review]. Neurology. 84(11):1165-73, 2015 Mar 17.Neurology. 84(11):1165-73, 2015 Mar 17.
66. Matthews L, Marasco R, Jenkinson M, et al. Distinction of seropositive NMO spectrum disorder and MS brain lesion distribution. Neurology. 80(14):1330-7, 2013 Apr 02.
67. Hemond CC, Bakshi R. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis. [Review]. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine:. 8(5), 2018 05 01.Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 8(5), 2018 05 01.
68. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. [Review]. Lancet neurol.. 17(2):162-173, 2018 02.
69. Arevalo O, Riascos R, Rabiei P, Kamali A, Nelson F. Standardizing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols, Requisitions, and Reports in Multiple Sclerosis: An Update for Radiologist Based on 2017 Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis and 2018 Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers Consensus Guidelines. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 43(1):1-12, 2019 Jan/Feb.
70. Traboulsee A, Simon JH, Stone L, et al. Revised Recommendations of the Consortium of MS Centers Task Force for a Standardized MRI Protocol and Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Multiple Sclerosis. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 37(3):394-401, 2016 Mar.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 37(3):394-401, 2016 Mar.
71. Pierce JL, Donahue JH, Nacey NC, et al. Spinal Hematomas: What a Radiologist Needs to Know. [Review]. Radiographics. 38(5):1516-1535, 2018 Sep-Oct.
72. Lee SY, Hur JW, Ryu KS, Kim JS, Chung HJ, Song MS. The Clinical Usefulness of Preoperative Imaging Studies to Select Pathologic Level in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Comparative Analysis of Three-Position MRI and Post-Myelographic CT. TURK. NEUROSURG.. 29(1):127-133, 2019.
73. Penning L, Wilmink JT, van Woerden HH, Knol E. CT myelographic findings in degenerative disorders of the cervical spine: clinical significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986;146(4):793-801.
74. Kitya D, Punchak M, Bajunirwe F. Role of Conventional Myelography in Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spine Disease in Low-Income Communities: Prospective Study. World Neurosurg. 104:161-166, 2017 Aug.
75. An HS, Seldomridge JA. Spinal infections: diagnostic tests and imaging studies. [Review] [33 refs]. Clin Orthop. 444:27-33, 2006 Mar.
76. Grelat M, Madkouri R, Tremlet J, Thouant P, Beaurain J, Mourier KL. Aim and indications of spinal angiography for spine and spinal cord surgery: Based on a retrospective series of 70 cases. Neurochirurgie. 62(1):38-45, 2016 Feb.
77. Hardacker JW, Shuford RF, Capicotto PN, Pryor PW. Radiographic standing cervical segmental alignment in adult volunteers without neck symptoms. Spine. 22(13):1472-80; discussion 1480, 1997 Jul 01.
78. Boruah DK, Prakash A, Gogoi BB, Yadav RR, Dhingani DD, Sarma B. The Importance of Flexion MRI in Hirayama Disease with Special Reference to Laminodural Space Measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:974-80.
79. Reardon MA, Raghavan P, Carpenter-Bailey K, et al. Dorsal thoracic arachnoid web and the "scalpel sign": a distinct clinical-radiologic entity. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1104-10.
80. Schultz R, Jr., Steven A, Wessell A, et al. Differentiation of idiopathic spinal cord herniation from dorsal arachnoid webs on MRI and CT myelography. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;26:754-59.
81. Chen H, Pan J, Nisar M, et al. The value of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting postoperative recovery in patients with cervical spondylosis myelopathy: a meta-analysis. [Review]. Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil). 71(3):179-84, 2016 Mar.
82. Gbadamosi H, Mensah YB, Asiamah S. MRI features in the non-traumatic spinal cord injury patients presenting at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital, Accra. Ghana Med J. 52(3):127-132, 2018 Sep.
83. Keddie S, Adams A, Kelso ARC, et al. No laughing matter: subacute degeneration of the spinal cord due to nitrous oxide inhalation. J Neurol. 265(5):1089-1095, 2018 May.
84. Xiao CP, Ren CP, Cheng JL, et al. Conventional MRI for diagnosis of subacute combined degeneration (SCD) of the spinal cord due to vitamin B-12 deficiency. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 25(1):34-8, 2016.
85. Khan M, Ambady P, Kimbrough D, et al. Radiation-Induced Myelitis: Initial and Follow-Up MRI and Clinical Features in Patients at a Single Tertiary Care Institution during 20 Years. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 39(8):1576-1581, 2018 08.
86. Dalmau J, Graus F. Antibody-Mediated Encephalitis. [Review]. N Engl J Med. 378(9):840-851, 2018 03 01.
87. Flanagan EP, Keegan BM. Paraneoplastic myelopathy. [Review]. Neurol Clin. 31(1):307-18, 2013 Feb.
88. Krings T, Geibprasert S. Spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(4):639-648.
89. Kralik SF, Murph D, Mehta P, O'Neill DP. Diagnosis of spinal dural arteriovenous fistula using 3D T2-weighted imaging. Neuroradiology. 59(10):997-1002, 2017 Oct.
90. Suh DC, Song Y, Park D, et al. New grading system for the clinical evaluation of patients with spinal vascular lesions. Neuroradiology. 60(10):1035-1041, 2018 Oct.
91. Zhou G, Li MH, Lu C, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the localization of spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas at 3T. J Neuroradiol. 44(1):17-23, 2017 Feb.
92. Abul-Kasim K, Thurnher MM, McKeever P, Sundgren PC. Intradural spinal tumors: current classification and MRI features. [Review] [60 refs]. Neuroradiology. 50(4):301-14, 2008 Apr.
93. Arima H, Hasegawa T, Togawa D, et al. Feasibility of a novel diagnostic chart of intramedullary spinal cord tumors in magnetic resonance imaging. Spinal Cord 2014;52:769-73.
94. Kalayci M, Cagavi F, Gul S, Yenidunya S, Acikgoz B. Intramedullary spinal cord metastases: diagnosis and treatment - an illustrated review. [Review] [50 refs]. Acta Neurochirurgica. 146(12):1347-54; discussion 1354, 2004 Dec.
95. Payer S, Mende KC, Westphal M, Eicker SO. Intramedullary spinal cord metastases: an increasingly common diagnosis. Neurosurgical Focus. 39(2):E15, 2015 Aug.
96. Samartzis D, Gillis CC, Shih P, O'Toole JE, Fessler RG. Intramedullary Spinal Cord Tumors: Part I-Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Diagnosis. [Review]. Global Spine Journal. 5(5):425-35, 2015 Oct.
97. Graber JJ, Nolan CP. Myelopathies in patients with cancer. [Review] [81 refs]. Archives of Neurology. 67(3):298-304, 2010 Mar.
98. Fujiwara Y, Manabe H, Harada T, Izumi B, Adachi N. Extraordinary positional cervical spinal cord compression in extension position as a rare cause of postoperative progressive myelopathy after cervical posterior laminoplasty detected using the extension/flexion positional CT myelography: one case after laminectomy following failure of a single-door laminoplasty/one case after double-door laminoplasty without interlaminar spacers. Eur Spine J 2017;26:170-77.
99. Kiyosue H, Matsumaru Y, Niimi Y, et al. Angiographic and Clinical Characteristics of Thoracolumbar Spinal Epidural and Dural Arteriovenous Fistulas. Stroke. 48(12):3215-3222, 2017 12.
100. Yamaguchi S, Takemoto K, Takeda M, et al. The Position and Role of Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Angiography in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Spinal Arteriovenous Fistulas. World Neurosurg. 103:611-619, 2017 Jul.
101. Sakai Y, Matsuyama Y, Imagama S, Ito Z, Wakao N, Ishiguro N. Clinical utility of multidetector row computed tomography for diagnosing spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas undiagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2010;10:255-63.
102. Yamaguchi S, Nagayama T, Eguchi K, Takeda M, Arita K, Kurisu K. Accuracy and pitfalls of multidetector-row computed tomography in detecting spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;12:243-8.
103. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.