Vimarsha G Swami1, Mihir Katlariwala2, Sukhvinder Dhillon2, Zaid Jibri3, Jacob L Jaremko4. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: jjaremko@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To minimize the burden of overutilisation of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on a resource-constrained public healthcare system, it may be helpful to image some patients with mechanical low-back pain (LBP) using a simplified rapid MRI screening protocol at 1.5-T. A rapid-acquisition 3-dimensional (3D) SPACE (Sampling Perfection with Application-optimized Contrasts using different flip angle Evolution) sequence can demonstrate common etiologies of LBP. We compared lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS) and neural foraminal stenosis (LNFS) assessment on 3D SPACE against conventional 2-dimensional (2D) MRI. METHODS: We prospectively performed 3D SPACE and 2D spin-echo MRI sequences (axial or sagittal T1-weighted or T2-weighted) at 1.5-T in 20 patients. Two blinded readers assessed levels L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1 using: 1) morphologic grading systems, 2) global impression on the presence or absence of clinically significant stenosis (n = 60 disc levels for LSCS, n = 120 foramina for LNFS). Reliability statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Acquisition time was ∼5 minutes for SPACE and ∼20 minutes for 2D MRI sequences. Interobserver agreement of LSCS was substantial to near perfect on both sequences (morphologic grading: kappa [k] = 0.71 SPACE, k = 0.69 T2-weighted; global impression: k = 0.85 SPACE, k = 0.78 T2-weighted). LNFS assessment had superior interobserver reliability using SPACE than T1-weighted (k = 0.54 vs 0.37). Intersequence agreement of findings between SPACE and 2D MRI was substantial to near perfect by global impression (LSCS: k = 0.78 Reader 1, k = 0.85 Reader 2; LNFS: k = 0.63 Reader 1, k = 0.66 Reader 2). CONCLUSIONS: 3D SPACE was acquired in one-quarter the time as the conventional 2D MRI protocol, had excellent agreement with 2D MRI for stenosis assessment, and had interobserver reliability superior to 2D MRI. These results justify future work to explore the role of 3D SPACE in a rapid MRI screening protocol at 1.5-T for mechanical LBP.
PURPOSE: To minimize the burden of overutilisation of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on a resource-constrained public healthcare system, it may be helpful to image some patients with mechanical low-back pain (LBP) using a simplified rapid MRI screening protocol at 1.5-T. A rapid-acquisition 3-dimensional (3D) SPACE (Sampling Perfection with Application-optimized Contrasts using different flip angle Evolution) sequence can demonstrate common etiologies of LBP. We compared lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS) and neural foraminal stenosis (LNFS) assessment on 3D SPACE against conventional 2-dimensional (2D) MRI. METHODS: We prospectively performed 3D SPACE and 2D spin-echo MRI sequences (axial or sagittal T1-weighted or T2-weighted) at 1.5-T in 20 patients. Two blinded readers assessed levels L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1 using: 1) morphologic grading systems, 2) global impression on the presence or absence of clinically significant stenosis (n = 60 disc levels for LSCS, n = 120 foramina for LNFS). Reliability statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Acquisition time was ∼5 minutes for SPACE and ∼20 minutes for 2D MRI sequences. Interobserver agreement of LSCS was substantial to near perfect on both sequences (morphologic grading: kappa [k] = 0.71 SPACE, k = 0.69 T2-weighted; global impression: k = 0.85 SPACE, k = 0.78 T2-weighted). LNFS assessment had superior interobserver reliability using SPACE than T1-weighted (k = 0.54 vs 0.37). Intersequence agreement of findings between SPACE and 2D MRI was substantial to near perfect by global impression (LSCS: k = 0.78 Reader 1, k = 0.85 Reader 2; LNFS: k = 0.63 Reader 1, k = 0.66 Reader 2). CONCLUSIONS: 3D SPACE was acquired in one-quarter the time as the conventional 2D MRI protocol, had excellent agreement with 2D MRI for stenosis assessment, and had interobserver reliability superior to 2D MRI. These results justify future work to explore the role of 3D SPACE in a rapid MRI screening protocol at 1.5-T for mechanical LBP.