A comparison of radiological descriptions of spinal cord compression with quantitative measures, and their role in non-specialist clinical management.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
20
03
2019
accepted:
23
06
2019
entrez:
23
7
2019
pubmed:
23
7
2019
medline:
28
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is gold-standard for investigating Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM), a disabling disease triggered by compression of the spinal cord following degenerative changes of adjacent structures. Quantifiable compression correlates poorly with disease and language describing compression in radiological reports is un-standardised. Retrospective chart review. 1) Identify terminology in radiological reporting of cord compression and elucidate relationships between language and quantitative measures 2) Evaluate language's ability to distinguish myelopathic from asymptomatic compression 3) Explore correlations between quantitative or qualitative features and symptom severity 4) Investigate the influence of quantitative and qualitative measures on surgical referrals. From all cervical spine MRIs conducted during one year at a tertiary centre (N = 1123), 166 patients had reported cord compression. For each spinal level deemed compressed by radiologists (N = 218), four quantitative measurements were calculated: 'Maximum Canal Compromise (MCC); 'Maximum Spinal Cord Compression' (MSCC); 'Spinal Canal Occupation Ratio' (SCOR) and 'Compression Ratio' (CR). These were compared to associated radiological reporting terminology. 1) Terminology in radiological reports was varied. Objective measures of compromise correlated poorly with language. "Compressed" was used for more severe cord compromise as measured by MCC (p<0.001), MSCC (p<0.001), and CR (p = 0.002). 2) Greater compromise was seen in cords with a myelopathy diagnosis across MCC (p<0.001); MSCC (p = 0.002) and CR (p<0.001). "Compress" (p<0.001) and "Flatten" (p<0.001) were used more commonly for myelopathy-diagnosis levels. 3) Measurements of cord compromise (MCC: p = 0.304; MSCC: p = 0.217; SCOR: p = 0.503; CR: p = 0.256) and descriptive terms (p = 0.591) did not correlate with i-mJOA score. 4) The only variables affecting spinal surgery referral were increased MSCC (p = 0.001) and use of 'Compressed' (p = 0.045). Radiological reporting in DCM is variable and language is not fully predictive of the degree of quantitative cord compression. Additionally, terminology may influence surgical referrals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31329621
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219380
pii: PONE-D-19-08045
pmc: PMC6645712
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0219380Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_12009
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : CS-2015-15-023
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Pediatr Radiol. 2009 Apr;39(4):348-53
pubmed: 19241075
Neuroimage Clin. 2015 Dec 04;10:192-238
pubmed: 26862478
Eur Spine J. 2013 Nov;22(11):2552-7
pubmed: 23989746
Radiology. 2005 Apr;235(1):5-8
pubmed: 15798161
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Jul;197(1):W134-40
pubmed: 21700974
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Jun;38(6):1257-1265
pubmed: 28428213
Radiology. 2001 Dec;221(3):789-94
pubmed: 11719680
Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):184-95
pubmed: 21224423
Clin Spine Surg. 2019 Apr;32(3):87-90
pubmed: 29939844
Global Spine J. 2018 Aug;8(5):527-534
pubmed: 30258760
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Mar;81(3):411-6
pubmed: 21215541
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 1;38(3):245-52
pubmed: 22772577
J Spinal Disord. 1991 Sep;4(3):286-95
pubmed: 1802159
Int Orthop. 2008 Apr;32(2):273-8
pubmed: 17235616
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 17;13(12):e0207709
pubmed: 30557368
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Dec 15;41(24):1908-1916
pubmed: 27509189
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Feb;16(2):123-7
pubmed: 2011765
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 15;40(12):E675-93
pubmed: 25839387
World Neurosurg. 2017 Oct;106:699-706
pubmed: 28065875
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Feb 1;40(3):171-8
pubmed: 25668335
Global Spine J. 2017 Sep;7(3 Suppl):70S-83S
pubmed: 29164035
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Mar 15;24(6):605-13
pubmed: 10101829
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Dec 15;42(24):1851-1858
pubmed: 28498290
BMJ Open. 2019 May 5;9(5):e027000
pubmed: 31061045
Neurosurgery. 2017 Mar 01;80(3S):S33-S45
pubmed: 28350949
Spine J. 2015 Mar 1;15(3):388-97
pubmed: 25549860
Neurosurg Focus. 2013 Jul;35(1):E1
pubmed: 23815245
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Aug;205(2):302-10
pubmed: 26204279
World Neurosurg. 2017 Apr;100:474-479
pubmed: 28130164
BMJ. 2018 Feb 22;360:k186
pubmed: 29472200
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016 Apr;158(4):677-683
pubmed: 26821836
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2010 Oct;152(10):1687-94
pubmed: 20512384
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Mar 15;40(6):392-8
pubmed: 25584950
Neurosurg Focus. 2016 Jun;40(6):E5
pubmed: 27246488
Neurosurgery. 2018 Sep 1;83(3):521-528
pubmed: 29462433
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Oct 15;18(14):2024-9
pubmed: 8272953
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 13;8(4):e019809
pubmed: 29654015
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 1;12(3):e0172564
pubmed: 28249017
Neurosurgery. 2018 Oct 1;83(4):753-760
pubmed: 29529304
Neurosurgery. 1999 Apr;44(4):762-9; discussion 769-70
pubmed: 10201301
Br J Radiol. 2008 May;81(965):383-5
pubmed: 18440942
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 02;11(8):e0157263
pubmed: 27482710
Spinal Cord. 1997 Jun;35(6):361-7
pubmed: 9194258