Tetreault Lindsay, Nakashima Hiroaki, Kato So, Kryshtalskyj Michael, Nagoshi Nagoshi, Nouri Aria, Singh Anoushka, Fehlings Michael G
Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery and Spinal Program, University of Toronto, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Global Spine J. 2019 Feb;9(1):85-103. doi: 10.1177/2192568217720421. Epub 2018 Aug 15.
Systematic review.
To conduct a systematic review to (1) summarize various classification systems used to describe cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) and (2) evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities and the reliability of these classification systems.
A search was performed to identify studies that used a classification system to categorize patients with OPLL. Furthermore, studies were included if they reported the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities or the reliability of a classification system.
A total of 167 studies were deemed relevant. Five classification systems were developed based on X-ray: the 9-classification system (0.60%); continuous, segmental, mixed, localized or focal, circumscribed and others (92.81%); hook, staple, bridge, and total types (2.40%); distribution of OPLL (2.40%); and K-line classification (4.19%). Six methods were based on computed tomography scans: free-type, contiguous-type, and broken sign (0.60%); hill-, plateau-, square-, mushroom-, irregular-, or round-shaped (5.99%); rectangular, oval, triangular, or pedunculate (1.20%); centralized or laterally deviated (1.80%); plank-, spindle-, or rod-shaped (0.60%); and rule of nine (0.60%). Classification systems based on 3-dimensional computed tomography were bridging and nonbridging (1.20%) and flat, irregular, and localized (0.60%). A single classification system was based on magnetic resonance imaging: triangular, teardrop, or boomerang. Finally, a variation of methods was used to classify OPLL associated with the dura mater (4.19%).
The most common method of classification was that proposed by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Other important methods include K-line (+/-), signs of dural ossification, and patterns of distribution.
系统评价。
进行一项系统评价,以(1)总结用于描述颈椎后纵韧带骨化(OPLL)的各种分类系统,以及(2)评估各种成像方式的诊断准确性和这些分类系统的可靠性。
进行检索以识别使用分类系统对OPLL患者进行分类的研究。此外,如果研究报告了各种成像方式的诊断准确性或分类系统的可靠性,则将其纳入。
共确定167项相关研究。基于X线的分类系统有5种:9分类系统(0.60%);连续型、节段型、混合型、局限型或局灶型、包绕型及其他类型(92.81%);钩型、钉型、桥型及全型(2.40%);OPLL的分布(2.40%);以及K线分类(4.19%)。基于计算机断层扫描的方法有6种:游离型、连续型和中断征(0.60%);山型、平台型、方形、蘑菇型、不规则型或圆形(5.99%);矩形、椭圆形、三角形或蒂状(1.20%);中央型或侧偏型(1.80%);板型、纺锤型或棒型(0.60%);以及九分法(0.60%)。基于三维计算机断层扫描的分类系统有桥接型和非桥接型(1.20%)以及扁平型、不规则型和局限型(0.60%)。基于磁共振成像的分类系统有1种:三角形、泪滴形或回旋镖形。最后,采用多种方法对与硬脑膜相关的OPLL进行分类(4.19%)。
最常用的分类方法是日本厚生劳动省提出的方法。其他重要方法包括K线(±)、硬脑膜骨化征和分布模式。