Literature DB >> 22430564

Reliability of change in lumbar MRI findings over time in patients with and without disc prosthesis--comparing two different image evaluation methods.

Linda Berg1, Oivind Gjertsen, Christian Hellum, Gesche Neckelmann, Lars G Johnsen, Geir E Eide, Ansgar Espeland.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22430564     DOI: 10.1007/s00256-012-1394-5

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


  37 in total

1.  Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology.

Authors:  D F Fardon
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration.

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

Review 3.  The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements.

Authors:  Julius Sim; Chris C Wright
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2005-03

4.  A three-year follow-up of lumbar spine endplate (Modic) changes.

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

5.  Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings.

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

6.  Lumbar spine: agreement in the interpretation of 1.5-T MR images by using the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification form.

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

7.  Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis.

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

8.  High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  C Aprill; N Bogduk
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Hypodensity of >1/3 middle cerebral artery territory versus Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECTS): comparison of two methods of quantitative evaluation of early CT changes in hyperacute ischemic stroke in the community setting.

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

Review 10.  Is the presence of modic changes associated with the outcomes of different treatments? A systematic critical review.

Authors:  Rikke K Jensen; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  4 in total

1.  Facet arthropathy evaluation: CT or MRI?

Authors:  Linda Berg; Hanne Thoresen; Gesche Neckelmann; Håvard Furunes; Christian Hellum; Ansgar Espeland
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Disc and nerve root findings on lumbar MRI with straightened v s flexed hips and knees-pilot study.

Authors:  Ansgar Espeland; Nina Dalen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Optimizing success with lumbar disc arthroplasty.

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

4.  Fat in the lumbar multifidus muscles - predictive value and change following disc prosthesis surgery and multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: 2-year follow-up of a randomized trial.

Authors:  Kjersti Storheim; Linda Berg; Christian Hellum; Øivind Gjertsen; Gesche Neckelmann; Ansgar Espeland; Anne Keller
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.