Literature DB >> 18280214

Reliability and accuracy of fine-cut computed tomography scans to determine the status of anterior interbody fusions with metallic cages.

Leah Y Carreon1, Steven D Glassman, James D Schwender, Brian R Subach, Matthew F Gornet, Shuichiro Ohno.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Computed tomography (CT) scan has been shown to be more accurate than radiographs in evaluating anterior interbody fusion but may still over-read the extent of fusion.
PURPOSE: To assess the reliability and accuracy of fine-cut CT scans with reconstructions in evaluating anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with metallic cages using surgical exploration as the reference standard. STUDY
DESIGN: Accuracy of a diagnostic test referenced to the gold standard. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 49 patients and 69 surgical levels. OUTCOME MEASURES: Evaluation of fine-cut CT scans for evidence of fusion with subsequent surgical exploration as the reference standard.
METHODS: Forty-nine patients who underwent ALIF with metallic cages over 69 levels, who had a fine-cut CT scan before revision were included. Five spine surgeons unaware of the findings on surgical exploration evaluated pre-revision CT scans, classified these as fused or not; and determined the presence of a "sentinel sign" and a "posterior sentinel sign." Kappa coefficients for interobserver reliability, sensitivity, and specificity to detect fusion were determined.
RESULTS: There were 26 males and 23 females with a mean age of 43 years. There were 27 smokers. Average time from index to revision surgery was 22 months. Interobserver kappa for classification as fused or not was 0.25 with 70% to 97% sensitivity and 28% to 85% specificity. The interobserver kappa for the sentinel sign was 0.34 with 13% to 33% sensitivity and 77% to 92% specificity. The interobserver kappa for the posterior sentinel sign was 0.23 with 33% to 87% sensitivity and 56% to 90% specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: Raters generally overstated fusion with low specificities across raters and low consensus specificity. Overall accuracy of the posterior sentinel sign (74%) was higher than the sentinel sign (61%). The low kappa value indicates fair reliability. In patients with metallic interbody devices, surgeons should be cautious about interpreting the findings on fine-cut CT scans whether using a general assessment of the fusion, the sentinel sign, or the posterior sentinel sign.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18280214     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.12.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  8 in total

1.  Comparing the process of creeping substitution between allograft bone and local bone grafting in lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Hui Huang; Chun Jiang; ZhenZhou Feng; Xiaoxing Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Assessment of successful incorporation of cages after cervical or lumbar intercorporal fusion with [(18)F]fluoride positron-emission tomography/computed tomography.

Authors:  Dorothee R Fischer; K Zweifel; V Treyer; R Hesselmann; A Johayem; K D M Stumpe; G K von Schulthess; T F Hany; K Strobel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The use of beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate as a bone graft substitute in posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Martin Thaler; Ricarda Lechner; Michaela Gstöttner; Conrad Kobel; Christian Bach
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Study on accuracy and interobserver reliability of the assessment of odontoid fracture union using plain radiographs or CT scans.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Klaus Kolb; Juliane Zenner; Jeremy Reynolds; Marcel Dvorak; Frank Acosta; Rosemarie Forstner; Michael Mayer; Mark Tauber; Alexander Auffarth; Anton Kathrein; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Iliac Crest Bone Graft versus Local Autograft or Allograft for Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alexander Tuchman; Darrel S Brodke; Jim A Youssef; Hans-Jörg Meisel; Joseph R Dettori; Jong-Beom Park; S Tim Yoon; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2016-01-06

6.  The Assessment of Fusion Following Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Surgery.

Authors:  Hamid Abbasi; John A Hipp
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-10-20

7.  Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive axial presacral L5-S1 interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbosacral spine pathology: a retrospective clinical and radiographic analysis.

Authors:  Massimo Balsano; Mauro Spina; Sara Segalla; Da Broi Michele; Carlo Doria
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2020-12-30

8.  Evaluation of Spinal Fusion in Thoracic and Thoracolumbar Spine on Standard X-Rays: A New Grading System for Spinal Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Nirmal D Patil; Hussein Abou El Ghait; Christian Boehm; Heinrich Boehm
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2021-02-15
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.