Magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in patients with sciatica who are potential candidates for lumbar disc surgery

Abdelilah El Barzouhi, Carmen L A M Vleggeert-Lankamp, Geert J Lycklama À Nijeholt, Bas F Van der Kallen, Wilbert B van den Hout, Annemieke J H Verwoerd, Bart W Koes, Wilco C Peul, Leiden–The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group, Abdelilah El Barzouhi, Carmen L A M Vleggeert-Lankamp, Geert J Lycklama À Nijeholt, Bas F Van der Kallen, Wilbert B van den Hout, Annemieke J H Verwoerd, Bart W Koes, Wilco C Peul, Leiden–The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group

Abstract

Background: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is considered the mainstay imaging investigation in patients suspected of lumbar disc herniations. Both imaging and clinical findings determine the final decision of surgery. The objective of this study was to assess MRI observer variation in patients with sciatica who are potential candidates for lumbar disc surgery.

Methods: Patients for this study were potential candidates (n = 395) for lumbar disc surgery who underwent MRI to assess eligibility for a randomized trial. Two neuroradiologists and one neurosurgeon independently evaluated all MRIs. A four point scale was used for both probability of disc herniation and root compression, ranging from definitely present to definitely absent. Multiple characteristics of the degenerated disc herniation were scored. For inter-agreement analysis absolute agreements and kappa coefficients were used. Kappa coefficients were categorized as poor (<0.00), slight (0.00-0.20), fair (0.21-0.40), moderate (0.41-0.60), substantial (0.61-0.80) and excellent (0.81-1.00) agreement.

Results: Excellent agreement was found on the affected disc level (kappa range 0.81-0.86) and the nerve root that most likely caused the sciatic symptoms (kappa range 0.86-0.89). Interobserver agreement was moderate to substantial for the probability of disc herniation (kappa range 0.57-0.77) and the probability of nerve root compression (kappa range 0.42-0.69). Absolute pairwise agreement among the readers ranged from 90-94% regarding the question whether the probability of disc herniation on MRI was above or below 50%. Generally, moderate agreement was observed regarding the characteristics of the symptomatic disc level and of the herniated disc.

Conclusion: The observer variation of MRI interpretation in potential candidates for lumbar disc surgery is satisfactory regarding characteristics most important in decision for surgery. However, there is considerable variation between observers in specific characteristics of the symptomatic disc level and herniated disc.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Flowchart.
Figure 1. Flowchart.

References

    1. Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Peul WC (2007) Diagnosis and treatment of sciatica. BMJ 334: 1313–1317.
    1. Bejia I, Younes M, Zrour S, Touzi M, Bergaoui N (2004) Factors predicting outcomes of mechanical sciatica: a review of 1092 cases. Joint Bone Spine 71: 567–571.
    1. Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Carragee E, Carrino JA, et al. (2008) Reliability of magnetic resonance imaging readings for lumbar disc herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33: 991–998.
    1. Practice parameters: magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of low back syndrome (summary statement). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 44: 767–770.
    1. Lurie JD, Doman DM, Spratt KF, Tosteson AN, Weinstein JN (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in patients with symptomatic lumbar spine disc herniations: comparison of clinician and radiologist readings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34: 701–705.
    1. Cihangiroglu M, Yildirim H, Bozgeyik Z, Senol U, Ozdemir H, et al. (2004) Observer variability based on the strength of MR scanners in the assessment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur J Radiol 51: 202–208.
    1. Findlay GF, Hall BI, Musa BS, Oliveira MD, Fear SC (1998) A 10-year follow-up of the outcome of lumbar microdiscectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23: 1168–1171.
    1. Korres DS, Loupassis G, Stamos K (1992) Results of lumbar discectomy: a study using 15 different evaluation methods. Eur Spine J 1: 20–24.
    1. Peul WC, van den Hout WB, Brand R, Thomeer RT, Koes BW (2008) Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation: two year results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 336: 1355–1358.
    1. Vucetic N, Astrand P, Guntner P, Svensson O (1999) Diagnosis and prognosis in lumbar disc herniation. Clin Orthop Relat Res: 116–122.
    1. Peul WC, van Houwelingen HC, van den Hout WB, Brand R, Eekhof JA, et al. (2007) Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. N Engl J Med 356: 2245–2256.
    1. Peul WC, van Houwelingen HC, van der Hout WB, Brand R, Eekhof JA, et al. (2005) Prolonged conservative treatment or 'early' surgery in sciatica caused by a lumbar disc herniation: rationale and design of a randomized trial [ISRCT 26872154]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6: 8.
    1. Fardon DF, Milette PC (2001) Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the Combined task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26: E93–E113.
    1. Modic MT, Masaryk TJ, Ross JS, Carter JR (1988) Imaging of degenerative disk disease. Radiology 168: 177–186.
    1. Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR (1988) Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 166: 193–199.
    1. Lynn MR (1986) Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 35: 382–385.
    1. Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Groothoff JW, Schellekens JM, et al. (2003) Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 13: 207–218.
    1. Brennan P, Silman A (1992) Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 304: 1491–1494.
    1. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20: 37–46.
    1. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV (1990) High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43: 543–549.
    1. Gjorup T (1988) The kappa coefficient and the prevalence of a diagnosis. Methods Inf Med 27: 184–186.
    1. Kovacs FM, Royuela A, Jensen TS, Estremera A, Amengual G, et al. (2009) Agreement in the interpretation of magnetic resonance images of the lumbar spine. Acta Radiol 50: 497–506.
    1. Arana E, Royuela A, Kovacs FM, Estremera A, Sarasibar H, et al. (2010) Lumbar spine: agreement in the interpretation of 1.5-T MR images by using the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification form. Radiology 254: 809–817.
    1. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2003) Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: Wiley: Chap 18.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174.
    1. Jarvik JJ, Hollingworth W, Heagerty P, Haynor DR, Deyo RA (2001) The Longitudinal Assessment of Imaging and Disability of the Back (LAIDBack) Study: baseline data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26: 1158–1166.
    1. Boos N, Rieder R, Schade V, Spratt KF, Semmer N, et al. (1995) 1995 Volvo Award in clinical sciences. The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, work perception, and psychosocial factors in identifying symptomatic disc herniations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20: 2613–2625.
    1. van Rijn JC, Klemetso N, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Hulsmans FJ, et al. (2006) Observer variation in the evaluation of lumbar herniated discs and root compression: spiral CT compared with MRI. Br J Radiol 79: 372–377.
    1. van Rijn JC, Klemetso N, Reitsma JB, Majoie CB, Hulsmans FJ, et al. (2005) Observer variation in MRI evaluation of patients suspected of lumbar disk herniation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184: 299–303.
    1. Solgaard Sorensen J, Kjaer P, Jensen ST, Andersen P (2006) Low-field magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine: reliability of qualitative evaluation of disc and muscle parameters. Acta Radiol 47: 947–953.
    1. Jarvik JG, Haynor DR, Koepsell TD, Bronstein A, Ashley D, et al. (1996) Interreader reliability for a new classification of lumbar disk disease. Acad Radiol 3: 537–544.
    1. Mulconrey DS, Knight RQ, Bramble JD, Paknikar S, Harty PA (2006) Interobserver reliability in the interpretation of diagnostic lumbar MRI and nuclear imaging. Spine J 6: 177–184.
    1. Ross JS (2010) Babel 2.0. Radiology 254: 640–641.
    1. Carlisle E, Luna M, Tsou PM, Wang JC (2005) Percent spinal canal compromise on MRI utilized for predicting the need for surgical treatment in single-level lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine J 5: 608–614.
    1. Carragee EJ, Kim DH (1997) A prospective analysis of magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with sciatica and lumbar disc herniation. Correlation of outcomes with disc fragment and canal morphology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22: 1650–1660.
    1. Cheng F, You J, Rampersaud YR (2010) Relationship between spinal magnetic resonance imaging findings and candidacy for spinal surgery. Can Fam Physician 56: e323–330.
    1. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, et al. (1994) Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med 331: 69–73.
    1. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW (1990) Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72: 403–408.
    1. Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Carragee EJ, et al. (2009) Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 250: 161–170.
    1. Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26: 1873–1878.
    1. Milette PC (2001) Reporting lumbar disk abnormalities: at last, consensus! AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 22: 428–429.
    1. Jarvik JG, Deyo RA (2009) Moderate versus mediocre: the reliability of spine MR data interpretations. Radiology 250: 15–17.
    1. Sim J, Wright CC (2005) The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 85: 257–268.
    1. Kim SW, Yeom JS, Park SK, Chang BS, Lee DH, et al. (2009) Inter- and Intra-observer Reliability of MRI for Lumbar Lateral Disc Herniation. Clin Orthop Surg 1: 34–39.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe