Literature DB >> 21286714

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

Guen Young Lee1, 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.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To introduce a new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis, evaluate its reliabilities, and compare it to the cross-sectional area and anterior-posterior diameter of the dural sac.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lumbar central canal stenosis is defined as obliteration of the anterior CSF space in front of the cauda equina. Four musculoskeletal radiologists independently graded lumbar central canal stenosis by this new grading system based on separation degree of the cauda equina on T2-weighted axial images (grade 0 = no lumbar stenosis without obliteration of anterior CSF space; grade 1 = mild stenosis with separation of all cauda equina; grade 2 = moderate stenosis with some cauda equina aggregated; and grade 3 = severe stenosis with none of the cauda equina separated) in 81 patients to determine inter- and intra-reader reliability. One radiologist measured cross-sectional areas and anterior-posterior diameters and compared these to lumbar central canal stenosis grades.
RESULTS: Inter-reader reliabilities were substantial to almost perfect (ICC reliability = 0.730-0.953). Intra-reader reliability was almost perfect (kappa value = 0.863-0.900). Cross-sectional areas and anterior-posterior diameters were different according to grades at all levels (p = 0.000-0.049), except between grades 2 and 3 of L2-3. At L5-S1, only anterior-posterior diameter was different between grades 0 and 1 (p = 0.005) and between grades 0 and 2 (p = 0.022).
CONCLUSIONS: This new grading system may be helpful to clinicians for simple and practical evaluation of lumbar central canal stenosis and for communicating with each other.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21286714     DOI: 10.1007/s00256-011-1102-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  27 in total

1.  Results of surgical treatment of idiopathic developmental stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal. A review of twenty-seven years' experience.

Authors:  H Verbiest
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1977-05

2.  Comparison of radiologic signs and clinical symptoms of spinal stenosis.

Authors:  C Martina Lohman; Kaj Tallroth; Jyrki A Kettunen; Karl-August Lindgren
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Observer variability in the evaluation of multiple lumbar stenosis by routine MR--myelography and MRI.

Authors:  Kwang-Sup Song; Eui-Chan Jang; Ho-Joong Jung; Kyung-Woon Kim; Hyeon Yu
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2008-12

Review 4.  Lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults: current understanding and future directions.

Authors:  John D Markman; Kristina G Gaud
Journal:  Clin Geriatr Med       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.076

5.  Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Constantin Schizas; Nicolas Theumann; Alexandre Burn; Rosamond Tansey; Douglas Wardlaw; Francis W Smith; Gerit Kulik
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Lumbar herniated disk disease and canal stenosis: prospective evaluation by surface coil MR, CT, and myelography.

Authors:  M T Modic; T Masaryk; F Boumphrey; M Goormastic; G Bell
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Quantitative assessment of the lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography.

Authors:  C G Ullrich; E F Binet; M G Sanecki; S A Kieffer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Quantitative assessment of the fifth lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography in symptomatic L4-L5 disc disease.

Authors:  M Kornberg; G R Rechtine
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population.

Authors:  R A Deyo; M A Ciol; D C Cherkin; J D Loeser; S J Bigos
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Low back pain hospitalization. Recent United States trends and regional variations.

Authors:  V M Taylor; R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; W Kreuter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  55 in total

1.  Clinical Experiences of Non-fusion Dynamic Stabilization Surgery for Adjacent Segmental Pathology after Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Soo Eon Lee; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-02-03

2.  Feasibility of Deep Learning Algorithms for Reporting in Routine Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe LewandrowskI; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12

3.  Clinical correlation of a new practical MRI method for assessing central lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  H-J Park; S S Kim; Y-J Lee; S-Y Lee; N-H Park; Y-J Choi; E-C Chung; M-H Rho
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Consensus conference on core radiological parameters to describe lumbar stenosis - an initiative for structured reporting.

Authors:  Gustav Andreisek; Richard A Deyo; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Francois Porchet; Sebastian F X Winklhofer; Johann Steurer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Artificial Intelligence Comparison of the Radiologist Report With Endoscopic Predictors of Successful Transforaminal Decompression for Painful Conditions of the Lumber Spine: Application of Deep Learning Algorithm Interpretation of Routine Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-11-18

6.  Reliability of standing weight-bearing (0.25T) MR imaging findings and positional changes in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Bjarke B Hansen; Philip Hansen; Anders F Christensen; Charlotte Trampedach; Zoreh Rasti; Henning Bliddal; Mikael Boesen
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Severity by CT or MRI Does Not Predict Response to Epidural Corticosteroid versus Lidocaine Injections.

Authors:  F A Perez; S Quinet; J G Jarvik; Q T Nguyen; E Aghayev; D Jitjai; W D Hwang; E R Jarvik; S S Nedeljkovic; A L Avins; J M Schwalb; F E Diehn; C J Standaert; D R Nerenz; T Annaswamy; Z Bauer; D Haynor; P J Heagerty; J L Friedly
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  Correlation between the Oswestry Disability Index and objective measurements of walking capacity and performance in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Annette Bennedsgaard Jespersen; Malin Eleonora Av Kák Gustafsson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Staged surgery for tandem cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis: Which should be treated first?

Authors:  Chi-An Luo; Arun-Kumar Kaliya-Perumal; Meng-Ling Lu; Lih-Huei Chen; Wen-Jer Chen; Chi-Chien Niu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Reliability Analysis of Deep Learning Algorithms for Reporting of Routine Lumbar MRI Scans.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.