Literature DB >> 32081513

Reliability of Human Lumbar Facet Joint Degeneration Severity Assessed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Joshua W Little1, Thomas Grieve2, Joseph Cantu3, William C Bogar4, Rudy Heiser4, Heather Miley4, Gregory D Cramer3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the assessment of lumbar facet joint degeneration severity by analyzing degeneration subscales using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in human participants.
METHODS: The reliability of articular cartilage degeneration, subchondral bone sclerosis, and osteophyte formation subscales of lumbar facet joint degeneration severity was assessed in MRI images from n = 10 human participants. Each scale was applied to n = 20 lumbar facet joints (L4/5 level). Three examiners were trained. A first assessment of MRI images was provided by the examiners followed by a second assessment 30 days later. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were determined using percent agreement, the weighted kappa coefficient κw for paired comparisons, and the overall weighted kappa κo. The minimum threshold for reliability was set at moderate levels of agreement, κw > 0.40, based upon previous recommendations.
RESULTS: The articular cartilage subscale had acceptable intraobserver (κo = 0.51) and interobserver (κo = 0.41) reliability. Scales for subchondral bone sclerosis (intraobserver κo = 0.28; interobserver κo = 0.10) and osteophyte formation (intraobserver κo = 0.26; interobserver κo = 0.20) did not achieve acceptable reliability.
CONCLUSION: Of the 3 subcategories of lumbar facet joint degeneration, only articular cartilage degeneration demonstrated acceptable reliability. Subscales of lumbar facet joint degeneration should be considered independently for reliability before combining subscales for a global degeneration score. Owing to the inherent difficulty of assessing lumbar facet joint degeneration, the use of multiple examiners independently assessing degeneration with reliable scales and then coming to a consensus score upon any disagreements is recommended for future clinical studies.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic Imaging; Facet Joint; Lumbar Spine; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Osteoarthritis; Reliability; Zygapophyseal Joint

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32081513      PMCID: PMC7200266          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.11.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther        ISSN: 0161-4754            Impact factor:   1.437


  21 in total

1.  MR imaging and CT in osteoarthritis of the lumbar facet joints.

Authors:  D Weishaupt; M Zanetti; N Boos; J Hodler
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Radiographic grading of facet degeneration, is it reliable? - a comparison of MR or CT grading with histologic grading in lumbar fusion candidates.

Authors:  Jae Chul Lee; Jang-Gyu Cha; Jae Ho Yoo; Hee Kyung Kim; Hyun-Joo Kim; Byung-Joon Shin
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 4.166

3.  Statistical methodology for reliability studies.

Authors:  M Haas
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 1.437

4.  Recruitment methods and costs for a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of chiropractic care for lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-site pilot study.

Authors:  Jerrilyn A Cambron; Jennifer M Dexheimer; Mabel Chang; Gregory D Cramer
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.437

Review 5.  Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration.

Authors:  Annette Kettler; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-09-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings.

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

7.  Diagnostic capability of low- versus high-field magnetic resonance imaging for lumbar degenerative disease.

Authors:  Ryan K L Lee; James F Griffith; Yvonne Y O Lau; Joyce H Y Leung; Alex W H Ng; Esther H Y Hung; S W Law
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Osteoarthritis of the facet joints: accuracy of oblique radiographic assessment.

Authors:  M Pathria; D J Sartoris; D Resnick
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging zygapophyseal joint space changes (gapping) in low back pain patients following spinal manipulation and side-posture positioning: a randomized controlled mechanisms trial with blinding.

Authors:  Gregory D Cramer; Jerrilyn Cambron; Joe A Cantu; Jennifer M Dexheimer; Judith D Pocius; Douglas Gregerson; Michael Fergus; Ray McKinnis; Thomas J Grieve
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 1.437

View more
  2 in total

1.  Feasibility of Deep Learning Algorithms for Reporting in Routine Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe LewandrowskI; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12

Review 2.  The Role of Diagnostic Injections in Spinal Disorders: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Brian Y Kim; Tyler A Concannon; Luis C Barboza; Talal W Khan
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-09
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.