Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The cervical aliment was classified as lordotic (a) and kyphotic (b).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Morphological types of OPLL were classified into the continuous type (a), segmental type (b), circumscribed type (c) and mixed type (d) according to Hirabayashi's classification.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The shape of ossification was defined as the wide-base type and narrow-base type on CT axial imaging.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The occupying ratio of the spinal canal was defined as the ratio of the maximal ossification thickness (a) to the anterioposterior spinal canal diameter (b) on CT axial imaging.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

The K-line is a straight line that connects the midpoints of the spinal canal at C2 and C7 on the lateral cervical radiographs.

Patients without OPLL exceeding the line were considered as K-line (+) ones (a) and those does exceed it were considered as K-line (-) ones (b).

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

The cross-sectional area of the spinal cord was measured on MR axial imaging at the most compressed segment.

The compression ratio of the spinal cord was measured as the ratio of anteroposterior diameter to transverse diameter of the spinal cord on MR axial imaging at the most compressed segment.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Intramedullary changes in signal intensity on both T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) of MRI were assessed.

Fig 7a shows a T2 hyper-intensity intramedullary change (arrow) and Fig 7b shows a T1 hypo-intensity intramedullary change (arrow) on saggital MRI scan.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Dural ossification was assessed by the presence of the double-layer sign (arrow).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 1.

Descriptive characteristics of the patient population.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Comparison of characteristics of patients with different recovery ratios of JOA score.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Comparison of characteristics of patients with and without minor trauma.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Stepwise logistic regression for lower recovery ratio of JOA score.

More »

Table 4 Expand