| Literature DB >> 34219471 |
Julian Pohlan1, Carsten Stelbrink1, Niklas Tuttle2, Felix Kubicka2, Ho Jung Kwon1, Paul Jahnke1, Friedemann Goehler1, Olivia Kershaw3, Achim D Gruber3, Matthias Pumberger2, Torsten Diekhoff1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previously, dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has been established for imaging spinal fractures as an alternative modality to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Entities:
Keywords: anulus fibrosus; cKeywords: Dual-energy computed tomography; intervertebral disc; nucleus pulposus
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34219471 PMCID: PMC9272519 DOI: 10.1177/02841851211025863
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Radiol ISSN: 0284-1851 Impact factor: 1.701
Fig. 1.Schematic images showing the preparation of the ex vivo spine phantom (a) for inducing the NP lesion by injection of sodium chloride solution and (b) for generating the AAF lesion with a surgical blade. AAF, anterior anulus fibrosus; NP, normal nucleus pulposus.
Contingency table from a rating with three raters at different levels of experience.*
| IVD damage + | IVD damage – | Total | IVD damage + | IVD damage – | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DECT + | 91 | 4 | 95 | CT + | 91 | 11 | 102 |
| DECT – | 9 | 46 | 55 | CT – | 9 | 39 | 48 |
| Total | 100 | 50 | 150 | Total | 100 | 50 | 150 |
NP lesion + | NP lesion – | Total |
| NP lesion + | NP lesion – | Total | |
| DECT + | 41 | 4 | 45 | CT + | 41 | 11 | 52 |
| DECT – | 9 | 46 | 55 | CT – | 9 | 39 | 48 |
| Total | 50 | 50 | 100 | Total | 50 | 50 | 100 |
AAF lesion + | AAF lesion – | Total |
| AAF lesion + | AAF lesion – | Total | |
| DECT + | 50 | 0 | 50 | CT + | 50 | 0 | 50 |
| DECT – | 0 | 50 | 50 | CT – | 0 | 50 | 50 |
| Total | 50 | 50 | 100 | Total | 50 | 50 | 100 |
*DECT cMap assessment is presented as a positive or negative test result against the true lesion as reference standard. IVD damage in general (combining NP and AAF lesions) is compared with NP and AAF lesion separately. Standard CT assessment is provided for comparison.
AAF, anterior anulus fibrosus; CI, confidence interval; CT, computed tomography; DECT, dual-energy CT; IVD, intervertebral disc; NP, nucleus pulposus; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.
Fig. 2.Conventional CT images in sagittal and oblique axial 1-mm reformation. DECT cMaps are shown in axial and sagittal reformation at 1 mm. Different patterns of IVD damage: NP lesion and AAF. AAF, anterior anulus fibrosus; CT, computed tomography; DECT, dual-energy computed tomography; IVD, intervertebral disc; NP, normal nucleus pulposus.
Accuracy data from a rating with three raters at different levels of experience.*
| DECT | CT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | |
| IVD damage | ||||
| Sensitivity | 91.0 | 83.6–95.8 | 91.0 | 83.6–95.8 |
| Specificity | 92.0 | 80.8–97.8 | 78.0 | 64.0–88.5 |
| PPV | 95.8 | 89.8–98.3 | 89.2 | 83.0–93.3 |
| NPV | 83.6 | 73.2–90.6 | 81.3 | 69.6–89.2 |
| NP lesion | ||||
| Sensitivity | 82.0 | 68.6–91.4 | 82.0 | 68.6–91.4 |
| Specificity | 92.0 | 80.8–97.8 | 78.0 | 64.0–88.5 |
| PPV | 91.1 | 79.8–96.4 | 78.9 | 68.5–86.5 |
| NPV | 83.6 | 73.8–90.3 | 70.2 | 73.8–88.9 |
| AAF lesion | ||||
| Sensitivity | 100 | 92.9–100 | 100 | 92.9–100 |
| Specificity | 100 | 92.9–100 | 100 | 92.9–100 |
| PPV | 100 | 92.9–100 | 100 | 92.9–100 |
| NPV | 100 | 92.9–100 | 100 | 92.9–100 |
*The table shows the sensitivity, specificity as well as positive and negative predictive values for the detection of IVD damage. The data show a moderately higher accuracy of DECT cMaps for NP lesions as compared with standard CT. Both DECT and CT allowed the detection of all AAF lesions.
AAF, anterior anulus fibrosus; CI, confidence interval; CT, computed tomography; DECT, dual-energy CT; IVD, intervertebral disc; NP, nucleus pulposus; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.
Fig. 3.Dose-dependent visualization of a nucleus lesion (cMaps in oblique axial reformation at 1 mm). Images acquired at ascending tube currents from left to right as indicated.
Fig. 4.Images obtained in three patients with different spinal pathologies. Images show sagittal and axial reformations at 4 mm including CT, DECT cMaps, and MRI T2 (T1-weighted sagittal MRI scan for patient 1, as no axial image was obtained). Patient 1 has an Anderson lesion located centrally in the nucleus (L3/4). Patient 2 has a posterior anulus lesion at the L4/5 level. Patient 3 shows complete destruction of L4/5 due to bacterial discitis. CT, computed tomography; DECT, dual-energy computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.