Using Magnetic Resonance Myelography to
Improve Interobserver Agreement in
the Evaluation of Lumbar Spinal Canal
Stenosis and Root Compression
الباحث الأول:
Haider Najim Al-Tameemi1
الباحثين الآخرين:
Sattar Al-Essawi, Mahmud Shukri, Farah Kasim Naji4
المجلة:
Asian Spine Journal
تاريخ النشر:
None
مختصر البحث:
Study Design: Cross-sectional retrospective study designed to assess interobserver agreement.
Purpose: To investigate if interobserver agreement using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of lumbar spinal canal
stenosis and root comp…
Study Design: Cross-sectional retrospective study designed to assess interobserver agreement.
Purpose: To investigate if interobserver agreement using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of lumbar spinal canal
stenosis and root compression can be improved upon combination with magnetic resonance myelography (MRM).
Overview of Literature: The interpretation of lumbar spinal MRI, which is the imaging modality of choice, often has a significant
influence on the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. However, using MRI alone, substantial interobserver variability has been
reported in the evaluation of lumbar spinal canal stenosis and nerve root compression.
Methods: Hardcopies of 30 lumbar spinal MRI (containing a total of 150 disk levels) as well as MRM films were separately reviewed
by two radiologists and a neurosurgeon. At each intervertebral disk, the observers were asked to evaluate the thecal sac for the presence
and degree of spinal stenoses (mild, moderate, or severe) and presence of root canal compression. Interobserver agreement was
measured using weighted kappa statistics.
Results: Regarding lumbar spinal canal stenosis, interobserver agreement between the two radiologists was moderate (kappa,
0.4) for MRI and good (kappa, 0.6) for combination with MRM. However, the agreement between the radiologist and neurosurgeon
remained fair for MRI alone or in combination with MRM (kappa, 0.38 and 033, respectively). In the evaluation of nerve root compression,
interobserver agreement between the radiologists improved from moderate (kappa, 0.57) for MRI to good (kappa, 0.73) after
combination with MRM; moderate agreement between the radiologist and neurosurgeon was noted for both MRI alone and after
combination with MRM (kappa, 0.58 and 0.56, respectively).
Conclusions: Interobserver agreement in the evaluation of lumbar spinal canal stenosis and root compression between the radiologists
improved when MRM was combined with MRI, relative to MRI alone.
