# Dynamic MRI in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review of Radiological Markers, Correlations, and Outcomes

## TL;DR

Dynamic MRI improves diagnosis of cervical spine issues by capturing motion-related compression and better predicting outcomes than static MRI.

## Contribution

This systematic review demonstrates that dynamic MRI reveals motion-induced spinal cord compression and improves diagnostic and prognostic accuracy.

## Key findings

- Dynamic MRI shows motion-dependent stenosis and intramedullary signal changes missed by static imaging.
- Extension imaging reveals disease progression through altered spinal cord area and CSF reserve.
- Preoperative dMRI findings predict neurological recovery and influence surgical planning in up to one third of cases.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Conventional static magnetic resonance imaging may underestimate the severity of cervical cord compression by failing to account for positional changes in the spinal canal. Dynamic MRI (dMRI) captures cervical motion, allowing evaluation of cord compression under physiological loading. This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence on how dMRI modifies the assessment of spinal canal narrowing and signal change, and how these findings correlate with impairment and postoperative outcomes in degenerative cervical myelopathy. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating the role of dMRI (flexion–extension MRI) in diagnosing or predicting outcomes of cervical degenerative pathology were included. Data were extracted on imaging protocols, diagnostic findings, quantitative parameters, and clinical outcomes. Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. dMRI consistently revealed motion-dependent stenosis and intramedullary signal changes not visible on static imaging. Extension imaging frequently demonstrated disease progression, showing altered spinal cord area, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) reserve, and additional compression levels. Dynamic sequences enhanced sensitivity for pathological segment detection and improved correlation with clinical severity. Preoperative dMRI findings, particularly extension-related compression and T2 hyperintensity, predicted postoperative neurological recovery and influenced surgical planning in up to one third of cases. Conclusions: Dynamic MRI provides superior diagnostic sensitivity and prognostic information compared with static imaging by revealing motion-induced spinal cord compression and microstructural alterations. It should be considered when clinical findings exceed static MRI severity or when the symptomatic level is uncertain. Standardization of protocols and large prospective studies are needed to define evidence-based clinical indications.