MRI of non-specific low back pain and/or lumbar radiculopathy: do we need T1 when using a sagittal T2-weighted Dixon sequence?
Cost savings
Low back pain
Magnetic resonance imaging
Radiculopathy
Spine
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
26
07
2019
accepted:
12
12
2019
revised:
16
11
2019
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
27
10
2020
entrez:
6
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To show that for the MRI workup of non-specific low back pain and/or lumbar radiculopathy, the acquisition of T1-weighted sequences in the sagittal plane could be waived when using an FSE T2-weighted Dixon sequence. Three musculoskeletal radiologists retrospectively reviewed fifty lumbar spine MRI examinations performed for non-specific low back pain and/or lumbar radiculopathy. Two protocols were separately analyzed in the sagittal plane: a standard protocol (T1-weighted, in-phase, and water-only images of an FSE T2-weighted Dixon sequence) and a simplified protocol (fat-only, in-phase, and water-only images of an FSE T2-weighted Dixon sequence). Eight items usually assessed on T1-weighted sequences were analyzed for each of the vertebrae (n = 250), vertebral endplates (n = 500), vertebral corners (n = 1000), foramina (n = 500), lamina (n = 500), and facet joints (n = 500). Interchangeability of these protocols was tested using the individual equivalence index. A decrease in interobserver agreement of ≥ 5% when one reader used the simplified protocol compared with when both readers used the standard protocol was considered clinically significant. Interreader and intrareader agreement were assessed using kappa statistics. Rates of findings with each protocol were compared using odd ratios. The standard and simplified protocols were interchangeable (range of upper bound of the 95%CI of individual equivalence index = 0.25 to 1.38%). Intraprotocol and interprotocol interreader kappa values were similar (0.253-0.671 vs. 0.236-0.723, respectively). Rates of findings were not statistically significantly different (p ≥ 0.074), or were higher with the simplified protocol (p ≤ 0.036). In our target population, a single sagittal T2-weighted Dixon sequence may replace the recommended combination of T1-, T2-, and fat-suppressed T2-weighted sequences. • In patients with non-specific low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy, spine MRI in the sagittal plane could be limited to a single FSE T2-weighted Dixon sequence, hereby reducing the acquisition time. • A simplified protocol of spine MRI in the sagittal plane combining FSE T2-weighted Dixon sequence provides the same information as a standard protocol including T1-, T2-, and fat-suppressed T2-weighted sequences for the workup of degenerative lumbar spine lesions. • For some findings shown on the simplified protocol, such as focal bone marrow replacement lesions or signs of infection, additional sequences including pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted sequences may be required, as is currently the case when using the standard protocol.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32020402
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06626-6
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06626-6
pmc: PMC7160219
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2583-2593Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Skeletal Radiol. 1998 Oct;27(10):529-45
pubmed: 9840389
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Dec;197(6):1298-308
pubmed: 22109283
Radiographics. 1999 Mar-Apr;19(2):373-82
pubmed: 10194785
Acad Radiol. 2014 Nov;21(11):1483-9
pubmed: 25300725
Radiology. 1984 Oct;153(1):189-94
pubmed: 6089263
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jul;91(1088):20170779
pubmed: 29762056
J Radiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;88(7-8 Pt 1):943-6
pubmed: 17878850
J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Sep;13(9):1069-78
pubmed: 27496288
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Apr;194(4):1095-8
pubmed: 20308517
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Dec;20(6):1025-9
pubmed: 15558561
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Apr;208(4):W146-W154
pubmed: 28140650
Eur Radiol. 1998;8(8):1327-34
pubmed: 9853209
Radiology. 2009 Jan;250(1):161-70
pubmed: 18955509
Lancet. 2017 Feb 18;389(10070):736-747
pubmed: 27745712
Pain Med. 2008 May-Jun;9(4):400-6
pubmed: 18489631
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015 Sep;19(4):335-47
pubmed: 26583362
Br J Radiol. 2018 May;91(1085):20170782
pubmed: 29393668
Radiology. 2018 Mar;286(3):948-959
pubmed: 29095674
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016 Nov/Dec;40(6):985-990
pubmed: 27331928
Magn Reson Med. 1991 Apr;18(2):371-83
pubmed: 2046518
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Sep;100(9):513-519
pubmed: 31130374
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Jun;64(6):2028-37
pubmed: 22231424
Br J Radiol. 2016 Jun;89(1062):20151074
pubmed: 27008281
Stat Med. 1998 Jul 15;17(13):1495-507
pubmed: 9695194
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018 Jul/Aug;42(4):574-579
pubmed: 29613984
Clin Radiol. 2013 Nov;68(11):e617-23
pubmed: 23932678
Radiographics. 2014 Jan-Feb;34(1):217-33
pubmed: 24428292
Radiology. 1988 Jan;166(1 Pt 1):193-9
pubmed: 3336678
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Sep;28(3):543-58
pubmed: 18777528
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Feb 1;154(3):181-9
pubmed: 21282698
Skeletal Radiol. 2018 Jan;47(1):107-116
pubmed: 28952012
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Mar;208(3):603-608
pubmed: 28004967