| Literature DB >> 25648168 |
Gregory M Malham1, Rhiannon M Parker2, Zita E Ballok3, Ben Goss4, Ashish D Diwan5, Juan S Uribe6.
Abstract
Study Design Surgeon survey. Objective To evaluate the reliability of bone single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) versus bone SPECT images co-registered with computed tomography (bone SPECT-CT) by analyzing interobserver agreement for identification of the anatomical location of technetium(99m)-labeled oxidronate uptake in the lumbar disk and/or facet joint. Methods Seven spine surgeons interpreted 20 bone scans: 10 conventional black-and-white tomograms (bone SPECT) and 10 color-graded bone SPECT-CT scans. Each surgeon was asked to identify the location of any diagnostically relevant uptake in the disk and/or facet joint between L1 and S1. Reliability was evaluated using the free-marginal kappa statistic, and the level of agreement was assessed using the Landis and Koch interpretation. Results Conventional bone SPECT scans and bone SPECT-CT scans were reliable for the identification of diagnostically relevant uptake, with bone SPECT-CT having higher reliability (kappa = 0.72) than bone SPECT alone (0.59). Bone SPECT and bone SPECT-CT were also reliable in identifying disk pathology, with kappa values of 0.72 and 0.81, respectively. However, bone SPECT-CT was more reliable (0.81) than bone SPECT (0.60) when identifying facet disease. Conclusions For the identification of disk pathology, it is reasonable to use either conventional bone SPECT or bone SPECT-CT; however, bone SPECT-CT is more reliable for facet joint pathology.Entities:
Keywords: CT; bone scan; image fusion; lumbar; reliability; spine
Year: 2014 PMID: 25648168 PMCID: PMC4303479 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1394298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Global Spine J ISSN: 2192-5682
Demographics of study population
| Bone SPECT ( | Bone SPECT-CT ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | ||
| Mean age, y (stdev) (range) | 64.5 (6.9) (51–74) | 63.3 (6.4) (52–69) |
| Female (%) | 5 (50%) | 6 (60%) |
| Mean BMI (stdev) (range) | 25.7 (3.1) (21.7–29.4) | 26.9 (6.3) (19.6–39.0) |
| Comorbidities | ||
| Tobacco use (%) | 1 (10) | 2 (20) |
| Prior lumbar spine surgery (%) | 2 (20) | 4 (40) |
| Primary diagnosis | ||
| Scoliosis (%) | 4 (40) | 2 (20) |
| Spondylolisthesis (%) | 3 (30) | 3 (30) |
| Degenerative disk disease (%) | 3 (30) | 2 (20) |
| Herniated nucleus pulposus (%) | 0 | 3 (30) |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography; SPECT-CT, single-photon emission computed tomography images co-registered with computed tomography; stdev, standard deviation.
Reliability analysis of bone SPECT scans versus SPECT-CT in detecting disk and facet pathology
| Overall agreement (%) | Free marginal kappa | Agreement (Landis and Koch criteria | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Any diagnostically relevant uptake | |||
| All levels, all scans | 83 | 0.65 | Substantial agreement |
| All levels, bone SPECT | 79 | 0.59 | Moderate agreement |
| All levels, SPECT-CT | 86 | 0.72 | Substantial agreement |
| Uptake in disk | |||
| All levels, all scans | 88 | 0.76 | Substantial agreement |
| All levels, bone SPECT | 86 | 0.72 | Substantial agreement |
| All levels, SPECT-CT | 90 | 0.81 | Almost perfect agreement |
| Uptake in facet | |||
| All levels, all scans | 85 | 0.71 | Substantial agreement |
| All levels, bone SPECT | 80 | 0.60 | Moderate agreement |
| All levels, SPECT-CT | 91 | 0.81 | Almost perfect agreement |
Abbreviations: SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography; SPECT-CT, single-photon emission computed tomography images co-registered with computed tomography.
Fig. 1Bone single-photon emission computed tomography scan with a high level of agreement between surgeons.
Fig. 2Bone single-photon emission computed tomography scan with a low level of agreement between surgeons.
Fig. 3Bone single-photon emission computed tomography images co-registered with computed tomography scan with a high level of agreement between surgeons.
Fig. 4Bone single-photon emission computed tomography images co-registered with computed tomography scan with a low level of agreement between surgeons.
Reliability of oblique plain films, CT, and MRI reported in the literature
| Study | Diagnostic test | Interobserver reliability (kappa) | Agreement (Landis and Koch criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pathria et al | Oblique plain films | 0.26 | Fair |
| CT | 0.46 | Moderate | |
| Coste et al | CT | −0.01–0.12 | Poor–slight |
| Weishaupt et al | CT | 0.60 | Moderate |
| MRI | 0.41 | Moderate | |
| Stieber et al | CT | 0.33 | Fair |
| MRI | 0.21 | Fair–slight |
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
Overall range based on left/right facet joints and L4–5 and L5-S1 levels.
Attending.
Fellows.