Alsaleh Khalid, Ho Derek, Rosas-Arellano M Patricia, Stewart Tanya Charyk, Gurr Kevin Roger, Bailey Christopher Stewart
Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Orthopaedic Spine Program, Victoria Hospital, London Health Science Centre, London, Canada.
Eur Spine J. 2017 Feb;26(2):362-367. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4724-9. Epub 2016 Sep 23.
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.
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.
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.
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.
确定磁共振成像(MRI)和计算机断层扫描(CT)在评估腰椎管狭窄症中的可靠性和可重复性,并将定性评估与定量评估及功能结局指标相关联。多项研究探讨了CT和MRI成像在腰椎管狭窄症中的问题。没有一项研究显示出一种检查方式具有优越性。
我们对54例患者的CT和MRI扫描进行了标准化的定性和定量评估。使用Kappa系数确定了三位评估者之间的观察者内和观察者间可靠性。分析了两种检查方式之间的一致性。将ODI和SF-36结局与成像评估相关联。
两位专家评估者对MRI的观察者内可靠性几乎达到完美(外科医生κ = 0.91,神经放射科医生κ = 0.92)。对于CT,外科医生的观察者内一致性较高(κ = 0.77),而神经放射科医生更高(κ = 0.96)。对于CT和MRI,两位专家评估者使用的标准化定性评估的观察者间可靠性均优于未使用标准化评估系统的专家评估者与普通报告放射科医生之间的可靠性。直接比较定性评估时,CT在20%-35%的时间内高估了狭窄程度(p < 0.05),而MRI在2%-11%的时间内高估了狭窄程度(p < 0.05)。定性和定量分析与功能状态之间未发现相关性。
本研究直接表明,MRI是比CT更可靠的工具,但两者均与功能状态无关。读者的经验和定性评估的标准化对可靠性均有影响。