Kyu H Lee1, Hee J Park1, So Y Lee1, Eun C Chung1, Myung H Rho1, Hyunchul Shin2, Young J Kwon2. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability of two recently reported MR grading systems of cervical neural foraminal stenosis (CNFS) and their correlation with clinical manifestations. METHODS: We evaluated 188 patients (male : female = 80 : 108; mean age of 41 years) who visited our institution and underwent oblique sagittal MRI of the cervical spine. Two radiologists evaluated the MRI findings for the presence and grade of CNFS at the narrowest point, with the grading systems (Park, Kim and mKim systems) suggested by Park et al and Kim et al. More than one positive neurologic sign and more than one neurologic clinical symptom was considered a positive neurologic manifestation of each foraminal stenosis. Interobserver agreement between the two readers was analyzed using kappa statistics. Non-parametric correlation analysis (Spearman's correlation) was used to evaluate the correlation coefficients (R) to assess the relationship between CNFS grade and clinical manifestations. RESULTS: Both the Park and mKim systems demonstrated a relatively high correlation (R = 0.714-0.764) between the CNFS grade and clinical manifestation, while the Kim system yielded a moderate correlation (by Reader 2). The Park and mKim systems demonstrated higher correlation values at the level of C6-7 than C4-5, while the Kim system showed no difference in correlation at the cervical spine level. CONCLUSION: Both the Park and mKim systems provide a reliable, reproducible CNFS diagnosis, while the Kim system has a slightly inferior reliability. The Park and mKim systems had a similar, relatively high clinical correlation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Grades 2 and 3 of the Park system and Grade 2 in the Kim and mKim systems exhibited a similar clinical significance. Patients with a grade of 0 (using each system) consistently exhibit negative neurologic manifestation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability of two recently reported MR grading systems of cervical neural foraminal stenosis (CNFS) and their correlation with clinical manifestations. METHODS: We evaluated 188 patients (male : female = 80 : 108; mean age of 41 years) who visited our institution and underwent oblique sagittal MRI of the cervical spine. Two radiologists evaluated the MRI findings for the presence and grade of CNFS at the narrowest point, with the grading systems (Park, Kim and mKim systems) suggested by Park et al and Kim et al. More than one positive neurologic sign and more than one neurologic clinical symptom was considered a positive neurologic manifestation of each foraminal stenosis. Interobserver agreement between the two readers was analyzed using kappa statistics. Non-parametric correlation analysis (Spearman's correlation) was used to evaluate the correlation coefficients (R) to assess the relationship between CNFS grade and clinical manifestations. RESULTS: Both the Park and mKim systems demonstrated a relatively high correlation (R = 0.714-0.764) between the CNFS grade and clinical manifestation, while the Kim system yielded a moderate correlation (by Reader 2). The Park and mKim systems demonstrated higher correlation values at the level of C6-7 than C4-5, while the Kim system showed no difference in correlation at the cervical spine level. CONCLUSION: Both the Park and mKim systems provide a reliable, reproducible CNFS diagnosis, while the Kim system has a slightly inferior reliability. The Park and mKim systems had a similar, relatively high clinical correlation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Grades 2 and 3 of the Park system and Grade 2 in the Kim and mKim systems exhibited a similar clinical significance. Patients with a grade of 0 (using each system) consistently exhibit negative neurologic manifestation.
Authors: Jeffrey S Stafira; Jagadeesh R Sonnad; William T C Yuh; David R Huard; Robin E Acker; Dan L Nguyen; Joan E Maley; Faridali G Ramji; Wen-Bin Li; Christopher M Loftus Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hee Jin Park; So Yeon Lee; Noh Hyuck Park; Jin Hwan Ahn; Eun Chul Chung; Sung Jun Kim; Jang Gyu Cha Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Hee Jin Park; Sam Soo Kim; Chul Hee Han; So Yeon Lee; Eun Chul Chung; Mi Sung Kim; Heon Ju Kwon Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: James Meacock; Moritz Schramm; Senthil Selvanathan; Stuart Currie; Deborah Stocken; David Jayne; Simon Thomson Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.804