Literature DB >> 12004176

Observer variability in assessing lumbar spinal stenosis severity on magnetic resonance imaging and its relation to cross-sectional spinal canal area.

Alex C Speciale1, Ricardo Pietrobon, Chris W Urban, William J Richardson, Clyde A Helms, Nancy Major, David Enterline, Lloyd Hey, Michael Haglund, Dennis A Turner.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Magnetic resonance image grading of lumbar spinal stenosis severity was analyzed retrospectively using a common clinical format.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of magnetic resonance image used to grade patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, as compared with cross-sectional spinal canal area. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Physicians currently classify the degree of lumbar spinal stenosis on magnetic resonance imaging as mild, moderate, or severe. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on criteria for these definitions.
METHODS: The magnetic resonance image scans of 15 patients with lumbar stenosis were blindly rated by seven observers for the degree of central, lateral recess, and foraminal stenosis between L1-L2 and L5-S1. Weighted kappa statistics were performed to analyze the inter- and intraobserver agreement. Digitized spinal canal area measurements were calculated. Linear regression models were used to assess the reliability of the grading system in predicting the cross-sectional area.
RESULTS: The average interobserver kappa score was 0.26. Within different specialties, the interobserver reliability was higher among radiologists (0.40), followed by neurosurgeons (0.21) and orthopedic surgeons (0.15). The average intraobserver kappa score was 0.11, rising to 0.43 after categories were combined (P = 0.001). The classification of central stenosis highly predicted spinal canal area (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate only a fair level of agreement among all observers. However, the ability of the various readers to predict the degree of central stenosis was high. Further studies should evaluate a consensus-based, standardized magnetic resonance image classification aimed at improved agreement among observers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12004176     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200205150-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  20 in total

1.  A new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis on MRI: an easy and reliable method.

Authors:  Guen Young Lee; Young Lee Guen; Joon Woo Lee; Woo Lee Joon; Hee Seok Choi; Seok Choi Hee; Kyoung-Jin Oh; Oh Kyoung-Jin; Heung Sik Kang; Sik Kang Heung
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  The diagnostic value of a treadmill test in predicting lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Thomas Barz; Markus Melloh; Lukas Staub; Christoph Roeder; Jörn Lange; Franz-Georg Smiszek; Jean-Claude Theis; Harry R Merk
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis: intra- and inter-reader agreement for magnetic resonance imaging parameters.

Authors:  Sebastian Winklhofer; Ulrike Held; Jakob M Burgstaller; Tim Finkenstaedt; Nicolae Bolog; Nils Ulrich; Johann Steurer; Gustav Andreisek; Filippo Del Grande
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Quantitative correlation of lumbar foraminal stenosis with local morphological metrics.

Authors:  Vimal S Gunasekaran; Dustin Hejdak; Benjamin Meyer; Andrew Klein; Kevin Koch
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-07-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Potential of magnetic resonance imaging findings to refine case definition for mechanical low back pain in epidemiological studies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alison Endean; Keith T Palmer; David Coggon
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Radiographic Morphometry of the Lumbar Spine in Munich Miniature Pigs.

Authors:  Elisabeth C Engelke; Christina Post; Christiane D Pfarrer; Martin Sager; Helmut R Waibl
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 1.232

7.  Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography-myelography for quantitative evaluation of lumbar intracanalar cross-section.

Authors:  Hiroyasu Ogura; Kei Miyamoto; Shoji Fukuta; Toshitaka Naganawa; Katsuji Shimizu
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.759

8.  Early postoperative MRI in detecting hematoma and dural compression after lumbar spinal decompression: prospective study of asymptomatic patients in comparison to patients requiring surgical revision.

Authors:  Massimo A Leonardi; M Zanetti; N Saupe; K Min
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  C4/5 foraminal stenosis predicts C5 palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty.

Authors:  Ho-Jin Lee; Jae-Sung Ahn; Byungkon Shin; Hoseok Lee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Correlations between sedimentation sign, dural sac cross-sectional area, and clinical symptoms of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Sangbong Ko
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.