Julio Urrutia1, Pablo Besa2, Mauricio Campos2, Pablo Cikutovic3, Mario Cabezon3, Marcelo Molina2, Juan Pablo Cruz3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile. jurrutia@med.puc.cl. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile. 3. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Grading inter-vertebral disc degeneration (IDD) is important in the evaluation of many degenerative conditions, including patients with low back pain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the best imaging instrument to evaluate IDD. The Pfirrmann classification is commonly used to grade IDD; the authors describing this classification showed an adequate agreement using it; however, there has been a paucity of independent agreement studies using this grading system. The aim of this study was to perform an independent inter- and intra-observer agreement study using the Pfirrmann classification. METHODS: T2-weighted sagittal images of 79 patients consecutively studied with lumbar spine MRI were classified using the Pfirrmann grading system by six evaluators (three spine surgeons and three radiologists). After a 6-week interval, the 79 cases were presented to the same evaluators in a random sequence for repeat evaluation. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the weighted kappa (wκ) were used to determine the inter- and intra-observer agreement. RESULTS: The inter-observer agreement was excellent, with an ICC = 0.94 (0.93-0.95) and wκ = 0.83 (0.74-0.91). There were no differences between spine surgeons and radiologists. Likewise, there were no differences in agreement evaluating the different lumbar discs. Most differences among observers were only of one grade. Intra-observer agreement was also excellent with ICC = 0.86 (0.83-0.89) and wκ = 0.89 (0.85-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In this independent study, the Pfirrmann classification demonstrated an adequate agreement among different observers and by the same observer on separate occasions. Furthermore, it allows communication between radiologists and spine surgeons.
PURPOSE: Grading inter-vertebral disc degeneration (IDD) is important in the evaluation of many degenerative conditions, including patients with low back pain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the best imaging instrument to evaluate IDD. The Pfirrmann classification is commonly used to grade IDD; the authors describing this classification showed an adequate agreement using it; however, there has been a paucity of independent agreement studies using this grading system. The aim of this study was to perform an independent inter- and intra-observer agreement study using the Pfirrmann classification. METHODS: T2-weighted sagittal images of 79 patients consecutively studied with lumbar spine MRI were classified using the Pfirrmann grading system by six evaluators (three spine surgeons and three radiologists). After a 6-week interval, the 79 cases were presented to the same evaluators in a random sequence for repeat evaluation. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the weighted kappa (wκ) were used to determine the inter- and intra-observer agreement. RESULTS: The inter-observer agreement was excellent, with an ICC = 0.94 (0.93-0.95) and wκ = 0.83 (0.74-0.91). There were no differences between spine surgeons and radiologists. Likewise, there were no differences in agreement evaluating the different lumbar discs. Most differences among observers were only of one grade. Intra-observer agreement was also excellent with ICC = 0.86 (0.83-0.89) and wκ = 0.89 (0.85-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In this independent study, the Pfirrmann classification demonstrated an adequate agreement among different observers and by the same observer on separate occasions. Furthermore, it allows communication between radiologists and spine surgeons.
Authors: James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Brett Hanscom; Jonathan S Skinner; William A Abdu; Alan S Hilibrand; Scott D Boden; Richard A Deyo Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 56.272
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: F C Oner; L M P Ramos; R K J Simmermacher; P T D Kingma; C H Diekerhof; W J A Dhert; A J Verbout Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: James F Griffith; Yi-Xiang J Wang; Gregory E Antonio; Kai Chow Choi; Alfred Yu; Anil T Ahuja; Ping Chung Leung Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Rafael Menezes-Reis; Carlos E Garrido Salmon; Gustavo P Bonugli; Debora Mazoroski; Mauricio H Tamashiro; Leonor G Savarese; Marcello Henrique Nogueira-Barbosa Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2016-08
Authors: Daniel Chepurin; Uphar Chamoli; Kyle Sheldrick; Samuel Lapkin; David Scott; Jeff Kuan; Ashish D Diwan Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Zamir Merali; Justin Z Wang; Jetan H Badhiwala; Christopher D Witiw; Jefferson R Wilson; Michael G Fehlings Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sven S Walter; Roberto Lorbeer; Gerald Hefferman; Christopher L Schlett; Anette Peters; Susanne Rospleszcz; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Elke Maurer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sebastian Lippross; Paul Girmond; Katja A Lüders; Friederike Austein; Lena Braunschweig; Stefan Lüders; Konstantinos Tsaknakis; Heiko M Lorenz; Anna K Hell Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 4.241