Table 7 Relation between USG and MRI as regarding diagnosis of each subtype of spinal dysraphism
From: Role of ultrasonography in screening of spinal dysraphism in infants at risk
USG | MRI | Test value | P value | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No | Yes | ||||
No. (%) | No. (%) | ||||
Tethered cord | |||||
No | 8 (100.0%) | 1 (8.3%) | 16.296* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 11 (91.7%) | |||
Lipomyelocele | |||||
No | 19 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | |||
Lipomyelomeningocele | |||||
No | 18 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | |||
Meningocele | |||||
No | 19 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | |||
Myelocystocele | |||||
No | 18 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | |||
Spinal lipoma | |||||
No | 17 (100.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 12.593* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (66.7%) | |||
Lipoma of the filum terminale | |||||
No | 17 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (100.0%) | |||
LDM | |||||
No | 17 (100.0%) | 1 (33.0%) | 12.593* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (66.0%) | |||
DST | |||||
No | 19 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | |||
Meningitis | |||||
No | 19 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | - | - | - |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |||
Tight filum terminale | |||||
No | 18 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | |||
Persistent terminal ventricle | |||||
No | 19 (100.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | – | – | – |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |||
CRS | |||||
No | 17 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (100.0%) | |||
Diastematomyelia | |||||
No | 19 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20.000* | 0.000 | HS |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (100.0%) | |||