UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Reliability of postoperative MR imaging in the determination of level and side of lumbar spinal decompression surgery


Wanivenhaus, Florian; Buck, Florian M; Betz, Michael; Farshad-Amacker, Nadja A; Farshad, Mazda (2016). Reliability of postoperative MR imaging in the determination of level and side of lumbar spinal decompression surgery. Acta Radiologica:Epub ahead of print.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the diagnostic modality of choice in defining soft tissue compromise of the spinal canal. PURPOSE To evaluate the reliability of postoperative MRI in the determination of level and side of lumbar spinal decompression surgery, investigated by two reviewers, in different levels of training and specialization. MATERIAL AND METHODS Postoperative MR images of 86 patients who underwent spinal decompression (single level, n = 70; multilevel, n = 16; revision decompression, n = 9) were reviewed independently by an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist and a fourth-year orthopedic surgery resident. The level (single or multiple) and side of previous surgical decompression were determined and compared to the surgical notes. We examined factors that may have influenced the reliability, including demographics, type of surgical decompression, use of a drain, and time interval from surgery to MRI. RESULTS Significantly fewer levels were correctly determined by the resident (77/86 cases, 89.5%) compared with the radiologist (84/86 cases, 97.7%) (P = 0.014). The resident interpreted significantly more MR images incorrectly in cases where a drain was used (n = 8; P < 0.001). Re-decompression cases were interpreted incorrectly significantly more often by both the radiologist (n = 2, P = 0.032) and the resident (n = 4, P = 0.014). CONCLUSION Determination of the level and side operated on in previous lumbar spinal decompression surgery on MRI has a high reliability, especially when performed by a musculoskeletal radiologist. However, this reliability is decreased in cases involving surgical drainage and same-level revision surgery.

BACKGROUND Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the diagnostic modality of choice in defining soft tissue compromise of the spinal canal. PURPOSE To evaluate the reliability of postoperative MRI in the determination of level and side of lumbar spinal decompression surgery, investigated by two reviewers, in different levels of training and specialization. MATERIAL AND METHODS Postoperative MR images of 86 patients who underwent spinal decompression (single level, n = 70; multilevel, n = 16; revision decompression, n = 9) were reviewed independently by an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist and a fourth-year orthopedic surgery resident. The level (single or multiple) and side of previous surgical decompression were determined and compared to the surgical notes. We examined factors that may have influenced the reliability, including demographics, type of surgical decompression, use of a drain, and time interval from surgery to MRI. RESULTS Significantly fewer levels were correctly determined by the resident (77/86 cases, 89.5%) compared with the radiologist (84/86 cases, 97.7%) (P = 0.014). The resident interpreted significantly more MR images incorrectly in cases where a drain was used (n = 8; P < 0.001). Re-decompression cases were interpreted incorrectly significantly more often by both the radiologist (n = 2, P = 0.032) and the resident (n = 4, P = 0.014). CONCLUSION Determination of the level and side operated on in previous lumbar spinal decompression surgery on MRI has a high reliability, especially when performed by a musculoskeletal radiologist. However, this reliability is decreased in cases involving surgical drainage and same-level revision surgery.

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:11 August 2016
Deposited On:25 Aug 2016 10:08
Last Modified:25 Aug 2016 10:08
Publisher:Informa Healthcare
ISSN:0284-1851
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185116661881
PubMed ID:27516606

Download

Full text not available from this repository.View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations