OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of change in lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings evaluated retrospectively by direct comparison of images and by non-comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre-treatment and 2-year follow-up MRI was performed in 126 patients randomized todisc prosthesis surgery or non-surgical treatment. Two experienced radiologists independently evaluated progress and regress for Modic changes, disc findings, and facet arthropathy (FA) at L3/L4, L4/L5, and L5/S1, both by non-comparison and by comparison of initial and follow-up images. FA was evaluated at all levels, and other findings at non-operated levels. We calculated prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) values for interobserver agreement. The impact of an adjacent prosthesis (which causes artefacts) and image evaluation method on PABAK was assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Image comparison indicated good interobserver agreement on progress and regress (PABAK 0.63-1.00) for Modic changes, posterior high-intensity zone, disc height, and disc contour at L3-S1 and for nucleus pulposus signal and FA at L3/L4; and moderate interobserver agreement (PABAK 0.46-0.59) on decreasing nucleus signal and increasing FA at L4-S1. Image comparison indicated lower (but fair) interobserver agreement (PABAK 0.29) only for increasing FA at L5/S1 in patients with prosthesis in L4/L5 and/or L5/S1. An adjacent prosthesis had no overall impact on PABAK values (p ≥ 0.22). Comparison yielded higher PABAK values than non-comparison (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding changes in lumbar MRI findings over time, comparison of images can provide moderate or good interobserver agreement, and better agreement than non-comparison. An adjacent prosthesis may not reduce agreement on change for most findings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of change in lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings evaluated retrospectively by direct comparison of images and by non-comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre-treatment and 2-year follow-up MRI was performed in 126 patients randomized to disc prosthesis surgery or non-surgical treatment. Two experienced radiologists independently evaluated progress and regress for Modic changes, disc findings, and facet arthropathy (FA) at L3/L4, L4/L5, and L5/S1, both by non-comparison and by comparison of initial and follow-up images. FA was evaluated at all levels, and other findings at non-operated levels. We calculated prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) values for interobserver agreement. The impact of an adjacent prosthesis (which causes artefacts) and image evaluation method on PABAK was assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Image comparison indicated good interobserver agreement on progress and regress (PABAK 0.63-1.00) for Modic changes, posterior high-intensity zone, disc height, and disc contour at L3-S1 and for nucleus pulposus signal and FA at L3/L4; and moderate interobserver agreement (PABAK 0.46-0.59) on decreasing nucleus signal and increasing FA at L4-S1. Image comparison indicated lower (but fair) interobserver agreement (PABAK 0.29) only for increasing FA at L5/S1 in patients with prosthesis in L4/L5 and/or L5/S1. An adjacent prosthesis had no overall impact on PABAK values (p ≥ 0.22). Comparison yielded higher PABAK values than non-comparison (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding changes in lumbar MRI findings over time, comparison of images can provide moderate or good interobserver agreement, and better agreement than non-comparison. An adjacent prosthesis may not reduce agreement on change for most findings.
Authors: K Luoma; H Riihimäki; R Luukkonen; R Raininko; E Viikari-Juntura; A Lamminen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Mari Kuisma; Jaro Karppinen; Jaakko Niinimäki; Mauno Kurunlahti; Marianne Haapea; Heikki Vanharanta; Osmo Tervonen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: John A Carrino; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Eugene J Carragee; Jay Kaiser; Margaret R Grove; Emily Blood; Loretta H Pearson; James N Weinstein; Richard Herzog Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Estanislao Arana; Ana Royuela; Francisco M Kovacs; Ana Estremera; Helena Sarasíbar; Guillermo Amengual; Isabel Galarraga; Carmen Martínez; Alfonso Muriel; Víctor Abraira; María Teresa Gil Del Real; Javier Zamora; Carlos Campillo Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: William R Sears; Ioannis G Sergides; Noojan Kazemi; Mari Smith; Gavin J White; Barbara Osburg Journal: Spine J Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Henry K F Mak; Kelvin K W Yau; Pek-Lan Khong; Alex S C Ching; Pui-Wai Cheng; Paul K M Au-Yeung; Peter K M Pang; Kenny C W Wong; Bernard P L Chan Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-04-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Matthew F Gornet; Francine Schranck; Nicholas D Wharton; Douglas P Beall; Elizabeth Jones; Mark E Myers; John A Hipp Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-04-26 Impact factor: 3.134