OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine how a limited protocol MR examination compares to a full conventional MR examination for the detection of non-degenerative pathology such as acute fracture, infection, and malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 349 non-contrast MR exams was selected retrospectively containing a 3:1:1:1 distribution of negative/degenerative change only, acute fracture, infection, and malignancy. This resulted in an even distribution of pathology and non-pathology. A limited protocol MR exam was simulated by extracting T1-weighted sagittal and T2-weighted fat-saturated (or STIR) sagittal sequences from each exam and submitting them for blinded review by two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists. The exams were evaluated for the presence or absence of non-degenerative pathology. Interpretation of the limited exam was compared to the original report of the full examination. If either reader disagreed with the original report, the case was submitted for an unblinded adjudication process with the participation of a third musculoskeletal radiologist to establish a consensus diagnosis. RESULTS: There were five false negatives for a sensitivity of 96.9 % for the limited protocol MR exam. Infection in the psoas, paraspinal muscles, and sacroiliac joint, as well as acute fractures in transverse processes and sacrum were missed by one or more readers. No cases of malignancy were missed. Overall diagnostic accuracy was 96.0 % (335/349). CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging of the lumbar spine limited to sagittal T1-weighted and sagittal T2 fat-saturated (or STIR) sequences has high sensitivity for the detection of acute fracture, infection, or malignancy compared to a conventional MR examination.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine how a limited protocol MR examination compares to a full conventional MR examination for the detection of non-degenerative pathology such as acute fracture, infection, and malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 349 non-contrast MR exams was selected retrospectively containing a 3:1:1:1 distribution of negative/degenerative change only, acute fracture, infection, and malignancy. This resulted in an even distribution of pathology and non-pathology. A limited protocol MR exam was simulated by extracting T1-weighted sagittal and T2-weighted fat-saturated (or STIR) sagittal sequences from each exam and submitting them for blinded review by two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists. The exams were evaluated for the presence or absence of non-degenerative pathology. Interpretation of the limited exam was compared to the original report of the full examination. If either reader disagreed with the original report, the case was submitted for an unblinded adjudication process with the participation of a third musculoskeletal radiologist to establish a consensus diagnosis. RESULTS: There were five false negatives for a sensitivity of 96.9 % for the limited protocol MR exam. Infection in the psoas, paraspinal muscles, and sacroiliac joint, as well as acute fractures in transverse processes and sacrum were missed by one or more readers. No cases of malignancy were missed. Overall diagnostic accuracy was 96.0 % (335/349). CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging of the lumbar spine limited to sagittal T1-weighted and sagittal T2 fat-saturated (or STIR) sequences has high sensitivity for the detection of acute fracture, infection, or malignancy compared to a conventional MR examination.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health care costs; Health care value; Limited protocol lumbar spine MRI; Low back pain; Lumbar spine MRI
Authors: Darryl T Gray; William Hollingworth; C Craig Blackmore; Michael A Alotis; Brook I Martin; Sean D Sullivan; Richard A Deyo; Jeffrey G Jarvik Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David M Studdert; Michelle M Mello; William M Sage; Catherine M DesRoches; Jordon Peugh; Kinga Zapert; Troyen A Brennan Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey G Jarvik; William Hollingworth; Brook Martin; Scott S Emerson; Darryl T Gray; Steven Overman; David Robinson; Thomas Staiger; Frank Wessbecher; Sean D Sullivan; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roger Chou; Amir Qaseem; Vincenza Snow; Donald Casey; J Thomas Cross; Paul Shekelle; Douglas K Owens Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-10-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jessica R Mann; Ged G Wieschhoff; Ryan Tai; William C Wrobel; Nehal Shah; Jacob C Mandell Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-08-17 Impact factor: 2.199