4.7 Article

Spinal Involvement in Patients with Chronic Non-Bacterial Osteomyelitis (CNO): An Analysis of Distinctive Imaging Features

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237419

关键词

CRMO; SAPHO; chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis; imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to identify the imaging features of chronic non-bacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) in the spine and differentiate it from other spinal diseases. The findings showed that there are differences in the manifestation of CNO between children and adults, including the length of affected bone segments, the extent of bone marrow edema and osteosclerosis, and the involvement of posterior structures.
Spinal involvement by chronic non-bacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) has been increasingly reported in recent years, often being presented as a diagnostic dilemma requiring differential diagnosis with bacterial spondylodiscitis and/or neoplasia. This study was aimed at identifying the imaging features of CNO facilitating its differentiation from other spinal diseases. Two radiologists assessed the imaging studies of 45 patients (16 male and 29 female, aged from 6 to 75 years, 15 children) with CNO collected from 5 referential centers. Spinal lesions were found in 17 patients (2 children and 15 adults), most often in the thoracic spine. In children, the lesions involved short segments with a destruction of vertebral bodies. In adults, the main findings were prominent bone marrow edema and osteosclerosis, endplate irregularities, and ankylosing lesions extending over long segments; paraspinal inflammation was mild and abscesses were not observed. In both children and adults, the involvement of posterior elements (costovertebral and facet joints) emerged as an important discriminator between CNO and neoplasia/other inflammatory conditions. In conclusion, a careful inspection of imaging studies may help to reduce the number of biopsies performed in the diagnostic process of CNO.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据