Mean subaxial space available for the cord index as a novel method of measuring cervical spine geometry to predict the chronic stinger syndrome in American football players

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

The chronic stinger syndrome is a distinct entity from acute stingers and has been shown to have its own pathophysiology that, unlike acute stingers, may reflect long-standing geometrical changes of the subaxial spinal canal and chronic irritation/degeneration of the exiting nerve root complex. There is no method available, however, to accurately predict these symptoms in athletes. The mean subaxial cervical space available for the cord (MSCSAC) is a novel alternative to the Torg ratio for predicting neurological symptoms caused by cervical spondylosis in elite athletes. It is the goal of this study to determine critical values for this measurement index and to retrospectively correlate those values to neurological symptoms.

Methods

Magnetic resonance images obtained in 103 male athletes participating in the 2005 and 2006 National Football League Scouting Combine and a control group of 42 age-matched male nonathletes were retrospectively reviewed. The Torg ratio and SAC values were calculated in triplicate at each cervical level from C3–6 by using lateral radiographs and midsagittal T2-weighted MR images of the cervical spine, respectively. These values were then averaged for each individual to produce mean subaxial cervical Torg ratio (MSCTR) and MSCSAC values. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for each measurement technique and were compared based on their respective area under the curves (AUCs).

Results

The MSCSAC difference between athletes with and without chronic stingers was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The difference between athletes with and without chronic stingers compared with controls was also statistically significant (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). The AUC for the MSCSAC was 0.813, which was significantly greater than the AUC for both the MSCTR (p = 0.0475) and the individual Torg ratio (p = 0.0277). The MSCTR had the second largest AUC (0.676) and the conventional method of measuring individual Torg ratio values produced the lowest AUC (0.661). It was found that using the MSCSAC with a critical value of 5.0 mm produced a sensitivity of 80% and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.23 for predicting chronic stingers. Lowering the cutoff value to 4.3 mm for the MSCSAC resulted in a possible confirmatory test with a specificity of 96% and a positive likelihood ratio of 13.25.

Conclusions

A critical value of 5.0 mm for the MSCSAC provides the clinician with a screening test for chronic stingers and anything < 4.3 mm adds additional confidence as a confirmatory test. These results are ~ 20% more accurate than the classic Torg ratio based on our AUC analysis. It was found that measuring the spinal geometry throughout the length of the subaxial cervical spine produced a more reliable method by which to predict neurological symptoms than the traditional approach of measuring individual levels. This shows that the underlying pathogenesis of the chronic stinger syndrome is best characterized as a process that involves the entire subaxial region uniformly.

Abbreviations used in this paper: AUC = area under their curve; MSCSAC = mean subaxial cervical space available for the cord; MSCTR = mean subaxial cervical Torg ratio; NFL = National Football League; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SAC = space available for the cord; VB = vertebral body.

Article Information

Address correspondence to: Steven M. Presciutti, M.D., 331 Old Kings Highway, Downingtown, Pennsylvania 19335. email: SPresciutti@resident.uchc.edu.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    The ROC curves for the 3 measurement indices evaluated (the MSCSAC, MSCTR, and the individual Torg ratio [TR]) for predicting chronic stinger syndrome in elite athletes. Sensitivity is plotted against the 1-specificity, and the no-discrimination line is given in each of the plots, represented as the solid diagonal line.

References

  • 1

    Albright JPMcAuley EMartin RKCrowley ETFoster DT: Head and neck injuries in college football: an eight-year analysis. Am J Sports Med 13:1471521985

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Albright JPVanGilder JEl-Khoury GCrowley EFoster DHead and neck injuries in sports. Scott WNNisonson BNicholas JA: Principles of Sports Medicine MarylandWilliams & Wilkins1984. 4086

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Altman DGBland JM: Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 308:15521994

  • 4

    Altman DGBland JM: Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ 309:1021994

  • 5

    Cantu RCBailes JEWilberger JE Jr: Guidelines for return to contact or collision sport after a cervical spine injury. Clin Sports Med 17:1371461998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Castro FP JrRicciardi JBrunet MEBusch MTWhitecloud TS 3rd: Stingers, the Torg ratio, and the cervical spine. Am J Sports Med 25:6036081997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Clancy WG JrBrand RLBergfeld JA: Upper trunk brachial plexus injuries in contact sports. Am J Sports Med 5:2092161977

  • 8

    Deeks JJAltman DG: Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ 329:1681692004

  • 9

    Hanley JA: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 29:3073351989

  • 10

    Hershman EB: Brachial plexus injuries. Clin Sports Med 9:3113291990

  • 11

    Hershman EBInjuries to the brachial plexus. Torg JS: Athletic Injuries to the Head Neck and Face ed 2St. LouisMosby1991. 34550

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Herzog RJWiens JJDillingham MFSontag MJ: Normal cervical spine morphometry and cervical spinal stenosis in asymptomatic professional football players: plain film radiography, multiplanar computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 16:S178S1861991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Hovis WDLimbird TJ: An evaluation of cervical orthoses in limiting hyperextension and lateral flexion in football. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26:8728761994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Kartal AYildiran ISenkoylu AKorkusuz F: Soccer causes degenerative changes in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 13:76822004

  • 15

    Levitz CLReilly PJTorg JS: The pathomechanics of chronic, recurrent cervical root neurapraxia. The chronic burner syndrome. Am J Sports Med 25:73761997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Lurie JDTosteson ANTosteson TDCarragee ECarrino JAKaiser J: Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 33:160516102008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    McClish DK: Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve. Med Decis Making 9:1901951989

  • 18

    Meyer SASchulte KRCallaghan JJAlbright JPPowell JWCrowley ET: Cervical spinal stenosis and stingers in collegiate football players. Am J Sports Med 22:1581661994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Odor JMWatkins RGDillin WHDennis SSaberi M: Incidence of cervical spinal stenosis in professional and rookie football players. Am J Sports Med 18:5075091990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Pavlov HTorg JSRobie BJahre C: Cervical spinal stenosis: determination with vertebral body ratio method. Radiology 164:7717751987

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Sallis REJones KKnopp W: Burners: offensive strategy for an underreported injury. Phys Sportsmed 20:47551992

  • 22

    Tierney RTMaldjian CMattacola CGStraub SJSitler MR: Cervical spine stenosis measures in normal subjects. J Athl Train 37:1901932002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Torg JS: Epidemiology, pathomechanics, and prevention of football-induced cervical spinal cord trauma. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 20:3213381992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Torg JSCorcoran TAThibault LEPavlov HSennett BJNaranja RJ Jr: Cervical cord neurapraxia: classification, pathomechanics, morbidity, and management guidelines. J Neurosurg 87:8438501997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Torg JSNaranja RJ JrPavlov HGalinat BJWarren RStine RA: The relationship of developmental narrowing of the cervical spinal canal to reversible and irreversible injury of the cervical spinal cord in football players. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:130813141996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Warren RFNeurologic injuries in football. Jordan BDTsairis PWarren RF: Sports Neurology Rockville, MDAspen Publishers1989. 235237

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Watkins RGDillin WMCervical spine and spinal cord injuries. Fu FHStone DA: Sports Injuries: Mechanisms Prevention Treatment BaltimoreWilliams & Wilkins1994. 854859

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Weinstein SM: Assessment and rehabilitation of the athlete with a “stinger.” A model for the management of noncatastrophic athletic cervical spine injury. Clin Sports Med 17:1271351998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Zweig MHCampbell G: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:5615771993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 98 98 12
Full Text Views 132 132 3
PDF Downloads 134 134 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar