{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036708111308466546, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03197158081705151, 'mean_word_length': 5.1678832116788325, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
FM1-7 Cranio-cervical instability in ehlers-danlos syndrome employing upright, dynamic MR imaging; a comparative study

Objectives Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is a hereditary connective tissue disorder leading to hypemobile joints including the craniocervical junction. Neck pain is a prominent feature. Structural abnormalities may have a dynamic element and thus may not be captured in a recumbent MRI. There is currently a lack of evidence1 assessing the use and diagnostic impact of positional MRI in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. We aim to evaluate structural features and dynamic instability in an EDS cohort employing dynamic MR imaging against a non EDS symptomatic cohort. Design Comparative Study. Subjects Patients diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and control subjects (non EDS with cervical spondylosis) were included in this study. Methods Cranio – cervical spine global and segmental movement parameters in the neutral, extension and flexion positions were measured from T2-weighted images in the midline sagittal plane. These parameters included the clivo axial angle, grabb oakes line, C2 sagittal vertical axis, C0-C1 angle, C1-2 angle, cervical lordosis and T1 slope. Results The clivo- axial angle measured in neutral was 139.7±10.4 degrees in the EDS group vs 148.9±8.4 in the control group (p<0.01) The cervical range of movement between flexion and extension was 74.6±24.4 in the EDS group vs 39.4±11.3 in the controls (p<0.0001). Conclusions EDS patients with neck symptoms exhibit different static as well as dynamic craniocervical structural features compared to a general population control. Reference Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]2015July;15(13):1–24.