MRI-based measurements of spondylolisthesis and kyphosis in degenerative cervical myelopathy.
Cervical alignment
Cervical spine
Degenerative cervical myelopathy
Kyphosis
Magnetic resonance imaging
Spondylolisthesis
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 11 2023
09 11 2023
Historique:
received:
07
02
2023
accepted:
02
11
2023
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
10
11
2023
entrez:
10
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To provide normative data and to determine accuracy and reliability of preoperative measurements of spondylolisthesis and kyphosis on supine static magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. T2-weighted midsagittal images of the cervical spine were in 100 cases reviewed twice by one junior observer, with an interval of 3 months, and once by a senior observer. The spondylolisthesis slip (SSlip, mm) and the modified K-line interval (mK-line INT, mm) were assessed for accuracy with the standard error of measurement (SEm) and the minimum detectable change (MDC). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability levels were determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The SEm was 0.5 mm (95% CI 0.4-0.6) for spondylolisthesis and 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.5-0.7) for kyphosis. The MDC, i.e., the smallest difference between two examinations that can be detected with statistical certainty, was 1.5 mm (95% CI 1.2-1.8) for spondylolisthesis and 1.6 mm (95% CI 1.3-1.8) for kyphosis. The highest reliability levels were seen between the second observation of the junior examiner and the senior observer (ICC = 0.80 [95% CI 0.70-0.87] and ICC = 0.96 [95% CI 0.94-0.98] for SSlip and mK-line INT, respectively). This study provides normative values of alignment measurements of spondylolisthesis and kyphosis in DCM patients. It further shows the importance of taking measurement errors into account when defining cut-off values for cervical deformity parameters and their potential clinical application in surgical decision-making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To provide normative data and to determine accuracy and reliability of preoperative measurements of spondylolisthesis and kyphosis on supine static magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy.
METHODS
T2-weighted midsagittal images of the cervical spine were in 100 cases reviewed twice by one junior observer, with an interval of 3 months, and once by a senior observer. The spondylolisthesis slip (SSlip, mm) and the modified K-line interval (mK-line INT, mm) were assessed for accuracy with the standard error of measurement (SEm) and the minimum detectable change (MDC). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability levels were determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS
The SEm was 0.5 mm (95% CI 0.4-0.6) for spondylolisthesis and 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.5-0.7) for kyphosis. The MDC, i.e., the smallest difference between two examinations that can be detected with statistical certainty, was 1.5 mm (95% CI 1.2-1.8) for spondylolisthesis and 1.6 mm (95% CI 1.3-1.8) for kyphosis. The highest reliability levels were seen between the second observation of the junior examiner and the senior observer (ICC = 0.80 [95% CI 0.70-0.87] and ICC = 0.96 [95% CI 0.94-0.98] for SSlip and mK-line INT, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides normative values of alignment measurements of spondylolisthesis and kyphosis in DCM patients. It further shows the importance of taking measurement errors into account when defining cut-off values for cervical deformity parameters and their potential clinical application in surgical decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37946139
doi: 10.1186/s12880-023-01151-x
pii: 10.1186/s12880-023-01151-x
pmc: PMC10634168
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
180Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Aug 1;38(17):E1115-20
pubmed: 23680839
World Neurosurg. 2018 Sep;117:e215-e220
pubmed: 29913296
Global Spine J. 2023 Sep;13(7):1932-1937
pubmed: 34919463
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Mar 15;38(6):496-501
pubmed: 22986838
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Oct 1;39(21):E1261-8
pubmed: 25077905
Neurospine. 2019 Sep;16(3):421-434
pubmed: 31607074
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Feb 15;43(4):248-254
pubmed: 28658043
Neurosurg Focus. 2016 Jun;40(6):E5
pubmed: 27246488
Eur Spine J. 2021 Jun;30(6):1521-1528
pubmed: 33881642
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S89-110
pubmed: 23962996
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Apr;41(8):E467-73
pubmed: 27064337
Yale J Biol Med. 2018 Mar 28;91(1):43-48
pubmed: 29599656
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Aug 15;39(18):1488-97
pubmed: 24859570
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Mar 1;35(5):537-43
pubmed: 20190625
Global Spine J. 2020 Jun;10(4):425-432
pubmed: 32435562
Eur Spine J. 2022 Feb;31(2):334-345
pubmed: 34853923
Eur Spine J. 2021 Jun;30(6):1501-1508
pubmed: 33640994
Neurosurg Rev. 2020 Jun;43(3):967-976
pubmed: 31053986
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jun 15;28(12):1258-62
pubmed: 12811268
World Neurosurg. 2016 Feb;86:112-9
pubmed: 26409089
Spine J. 2015 Sep 1;15(9):1956-62
pubmed: 25130777
Spine J. 2016 Jan 1;16(1):42-8
pubmed: 26291398
BMC Neurol. 2020 Oct 6;20(1):367
pubmed: 33023483
Nat Rev Neurol. 2020 Feb;16(2):108-124
pubmed: 31974455
Global Spine J. 2021 Sep;11(7):1134-1141
pubmed: 33063537
Asian Spine J. 2017 Feb;11(1):24-30
pubmed: 28243365
Global Spine J. 2020 Jun;10(4):448-455
pubmed: 32435566
Neurosurgery. 1998 Jul;43(1):43-9; discussion 49-50
pubmed: 9657187