Kim Hak-Sun, Heller John G, Hudgins Patricia A, Fountain Jack A
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Young-Dong Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Nov 1;28(21):2441-6. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000090830.94641.AE.
A blinded, prospective comparison of computed tomography scan accuracy for determining the location of cervical pedicle screw position in human cadavers.
To establish recommended computed tomography technique guidelines for assessing location of cervical pedicle screws.
A small number of studies have described the accuracy of roentgenography regarding the assessment of pedicle screw position. However, a few studies have investigated the accuracy of computed tomography in this respect. Ebraheim et al evaluated the relation of lateral mass screws to the nerve roots within the intervertebral foramen on oblique radiographs. No study has been undertaken, to our knowledge, to specifically define the reliability and validity of computed tomography scans in the case of cervical pedicle screw placement.
As a pilot study, 10 cadaveric cervical spines from another study with bilateral 3.5 mm titanium pedicle screws were scanned with 1.0 mm axial slices. After the scans were interpreted by three blinded readers, each panel member was "trained" with regard to individual accuracy. Ten more cadaveric cervical spines were instrumented with 3.5 mm titanium screws in each pedicle (C2-C7). The specimens were then scanned with a variety of computed tomography techniques, including spiral acquisitions at 1.0 mm, 1.0 mm + reconstruction, 2.5 mm, 5.0 mm slices, and the three-dimensional Stealth Station recipes. The specimens were dissected, and malpositioned screws were recorded and photographed by independent raters. The same three readers from the pilot study then read each new scan in random order.
Reader accuracies in the pretraining pilot study were 74%, 68%, and 52%, with kappa coefficients of 0.49, 0.37, and 0.07, respectively, and significant intrarater variances (P = 0.014). After training, the accuracy rate improved significantly to 89%, 88%, and 85% in posttraining study, and the kappa coefficients were 0.81, 0.78, and 0.73, respectively. Kappa statistical analysis showed negligible interreader variance on the entire pivotal study except by the three-dimensional Stealth Station format. The overall mean kappa coefficients were 0.77, 0.75, and 0.73. Assessment of pedicle screw position was statistically inferior with 5.0 mm axial slices, in contrast to slices <3.0 mm.
We demonstrated that reliance on computed tomography scan data in determining the misplacement of a pedicle screw is usually accurate given proper scan acquisition, presentation windows, and adequate reader training, but a clinically significant error rate remains. A conventional computed tomography scan should not be treated as a gold standard, particularly without regard to the readers' training.
一项关于计算机断层扫描(CT)在确定人体尸体颈椎椎弓根螺钉位置准确性的双盲前瞻性比较研究。
制定评估颈椎椎弓根螺钉位置的推荐CT技术指南。
少数研究描述了X线摄影在评估椎弓根螺钉位置方面的准确性。然而,在这方面,很少有研究调查CT的准确性。Ebraheim等人评估了斜位X线片上侧块螺钉与椎间孔内神经根的关系。据我们所知,尚未有研究专门确定CT扫描在颈椎椎弓根螺钉置入情况下的可靠性和有效性。
作为一项初步研究,对另一项研究中的10具尸体颈椎进行扫描,这些颈椎双侧均植入了3.5毫米钛制椎弓根螺钉,扫描层厚为1.0毫米。在三位不知情的读者解读扫描结果后,每位小组成员针对各自的准确性进行了“培训”。另外10具尸体颈椎在每个椎弓根(C2 - C7)植入3.5毫米钛螺钉。然后用多种CT技术对标本进行扫描,包括1.0毫米螺旋采集、1.0毫米 + 重建、2.5毫米、5.0毫米层厚扫描以及三维Stealth Station扫描方案。对标本进行解剖,由独立评估人员记录并拍摄位置不当的螺钉。初步研究中的三位读者随后以随机顺序解读每次新的扫描结果。
在预培训初步研究中,读者的准确率分别为74%、68%和52%,kappa系数分别为0.49、0.37和0.07,且读者内差异显著(P = 0.014)。培训后,在培训后研究中准确率显著提高至89%、88%和85%,kappa系数分别为0.81、0.78和0.73。kappa统计分析显示,除三维Stealth Station扫描方案外,在整个关键研究中读者间差异可忽略不计。总体平均kappa系数分别为0.77、0.75和0.73。与层厚小于3.0毫米的扫描相比,5.0毫米层厚的轴向扫描在评估椎弓根螺钉位置方面在统计学上较差。
我们证明,在进行适当的扫描采集、设置显示窗口并给予读者充分培训的情况下,依靠CT扫描数据确定椎弓根螺钉位置不当通常是准确的,但仍存在具有临床意义的错误率。传统的CT扫描不应被视为金标准,尤其是在不考虑读者培训的情况下。