Khalid Alsaleh1,2,3, Derek Ho4, M Patricia Rosas-Arellano5, Tanya Charyk Stewart5, Kevin Roger Gurr6,5, Christopher Stewart Bailey6,5. 1. Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. khalsaleh@ksu.edu.sa. 2. Orthopaedic Spine Program, Victoria Hospital, London Health Science Centre, London, Canada. khalsaleh@ksu.edu.sa. 3. Department of Orthopedics (49), College of Medicine, King Saud University, P. O. Box 7805, Riyadh, 11472, Saudi Arabia. khalsaleh@ksu.edu.sa. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 5. Orthopaedic Spine Program, Victoria Hospital, London Health Science Centre, London, Canada. 6. Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and dependability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computerized tomography (CT) in the assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis and correlate the qualitative assessment to both a quantitative assessment and functional outcome measures. Multiple studies have addressed the issue of CT and MRI imaging in lumbar spinal stenosis. None showed superiority of one modality. METHODS: We performed a standardized qualitative and quantitative review of CT and MRI scans of 54 patients. Intra-observer and inter-observer reliability was determined between three reviewer using Kappa coefficient. Agreement between the two modalities was analyzed. ODI and SF-36 outcomes were correlated with the imaging assessments. RESULTS: Almost perfect intra-observer reliability for MRI was achieved by the two expert reviewers (κ = 0.91 for surgeon and κ = 0.92 for neuro-radiologist). For CT, substantial intra-observer agreement was found for the surgeon (κ = 0.77) while the neuro-radiologist was higher (κ = 0.96). For both CT and MRI the standardized qualitative assessment used by the two expert reviewers had a better inter-observer reliability than that between the expert reviewers and the general reporting radiologist, who did not utilize a standardized assessment system. When the qualitative assessment was compared directly, CT overestimated the degree of stenosis 20-35 % of the time (p < 0.05) while MRI overestimated the degree of stenosis 2-11 % of the time (p < 0.05). No correlation was found between qualitative and quantitative analysis with functional status. CONCLUSIONS: This study directly demonstrates that MRI is a more reliable tool than CT, but neither correlates with functional status. Both experience of the reader and the standardization of a qualitative assessment are influential to the reliability.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and dependability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computerized tomography (CT) in the assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis and correlate the qualitative assessment to both a quantitative assessment and functional outcome measures. Multiple studies have addressed the issue of CT and MRI imaging in lumbar spinal stenosis. None showed superiority of one modality. METHODS: We performed a standardized qualitative and quantitative review of CT and MRI scans of 54 patients. Intra-observer and inter-observer reliability was determined between three reviewer using Kappa coefficient. Agreement between the two modalities was analyzed. ODI and SF-36 outcomes were correlated with the imaging assessments. RESULTS: Almost perfect intra-observer reliability for MRI was achieved by the two expert reviewers (κ = 0.91 for surgeon and κ = 0.92 for neuro-radiologist). For CT, substantial intra-observer agreement was found for the surgeon (κ = 0.77) while the neuro-radiologist was higher (κ = 0.96). For both CT and MRI the standardized qualitative assessment used by the two expert reviewers had a better inter-observer reliability than that between the expert reviewers and the general reporting radiologist, who did not utilize a standardized assessment system. When the qualitative assessment was compared directly, CT overestimated the degree of stenosis 20-35 % of the time (p < 0.05) while MRI overestimated the degree of stenosis 2-11 % of the time (p < 0.05). No correlation was found between qualitative and quantitative analysis with functional status. CONCLUSIONS: This study directly demonstrates that MRI is a more reliable tool than CT, but neither correlates with functional status. Both experience of the reader and the standardization of a qualitative assessment are influential to the reliability.
Authors: Young Uk Kim; Yu-Gyeong Kong; Jonghyuk Lee; Yuseon Cheong; Se hun Kim; Hyun Kyu Kim; Jun Young Park; Jeong Hun Suh Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Jon D Lurie; Anna N Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Eugene Carragee; John A Carrino; John Carrino; Jay Kaiser; Roberto T Blanco Sequeiros; Amy Rosen Lecomte; Margaret R Grove; Emily A Blood; Loretta H Pearson; James N Weinstein; Richard Herzog Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: William C Watters; Jamie Baisden; Thomas J Gilbert; Scott Kreiner; Daniel K Resnick; Christopher M Bono; Gary Ghiselli; Michael H Heggeness; Daniel J Mazanec; Conor O'Neill; Charles A Reitman; William O Shaffer; Jeffrey T Summers; John F Toton Journal: Spine J Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Tae Sik Goh; Jong Ki Shin; Myung Soo Youn; Hong Seok Lee; Taek Hoon Kim; Jung Sub Lee Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: U U Bharadwaj; A R Ben-Natan; J Huang; V Pedoia; D Chou; S Majumdar; T M Link; C T Chin Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Timothy R Deer; Jay S Grider; Jason E Pope; Tim J Lamer; Sayed E Wahezi; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Steven Falowski; Reda Tolba; Jay M Shah; Natalie Strand; Alex Escobar; Mark Malinowski; Anjum Bux; Navdeep Jassal; Jennifer Hah; Jacqueline Weisbein; Nestor D Tomycz; Jessica Jameson; Erika A Petersen; Dawood Sayed Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 2.832
Authors: Min Soo Kim; Tae Yoon Jeong; Yu Seon Cheong; Young Wook Jeon; So Young Lim; Seong Sik Kang; In Nam Kim; Tsong Bin Chang; Hyun Ho Seong; Byeong Mun Hwang Journal: Korean J Pain Date: 2017-09-29
Authors: Vitali Koch; Ibrahim Yel; Leon D Grünewald; Sebastian Beckers; Iris Burck; Lukas Lenga; Simon S Martin; Christoph Mader; Julian L Wichmann; Moritz H Albrecht; Katrin Eichler; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Tommaso D'Angelo; Silvio Mazziotti; Giorgio Ascenti; Thomas J Vogl; Christian Booz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 5.315