Cargando…

Compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: Axial vs sagittal T(2) mapping

The aim of this study was to assess T(2) values of the lumbar intervertebral discs in the axial and sagittal plane views and assess their respective interobserver reliability. The lumbar intervertebral discs of 23 symptomatic patients (11 female; 12 male; mean age, 44.1 ± 10.6; range, 24‐64 years) w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Raudner, Marcus, Schreiner, Markus M., Weber, Michael, Juras, Vladimir, Stelzeneder, David, Windhager, Reinhard, Trattnig, Siegfried
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7496420/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293737
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.24691
_version_ 1783583092959608832
author Raudner, Marcus
Schreiner, Markus M.
Weber, Michael
Juras, Vladimir
Stelzeneder, David
Windhager, Reinhard
Trattnig, Siegfried
author_facet Raudner, Marcus
Schreiner, Markus M.
Weber, Michael
Juras, Vladimir
Stelzeneder, David
Windhager, Reinhard
Trattnig, Siegfried
author_sort Raudner, Marcus
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to assess T(2) values of the lumbar intervertebral discs in the axial and sagittal plane views and assess their respective interobserver reliability. The lumbar intervertebral discs of 23 symptomatic patients (11 female; 12 male; mean age, 44.1 ± 10.6; range, 24‐64 years) were examined at 3T. Region‐of‐interest (ROI) analysis was performed on axial and sagittal T(2) maps by two independent observers. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was assessed for every ROI. The interobserver agreement was excellent for the nucleus pulposus (NP) in the sagittal (0.951; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.926‐0.968) and axial (0.921; 95% CI, 0.845‐0.955) planes. The posterior 20% region showed a higher ICC in the axial vs the sagittal assessment (0.845; 95% CI, 0.704‐0.911 vs 0.819; 95% CI, 0.744‐0.873). The same was true for the posterior 10%, with the axial ROI showing a higher ICC (0.923; 95% CI, 0.865‐0.953 vs 0.628; 95% CI, 0.495‐0.732). The intraobserver agreement was excellent for every ROI except the sagittal 10% region, which showed good performance (0.869; 95% CI, 0.813‐0.909). The sagittal nucleus pulposus was the best‐performing ROI with regard to intra‐ and interobserver agreement in the T(2) assessment of the lumbar intervertebral disc. However, the axial NP showed more stable agreements overall and across the value range. In addition, the annular analysis showed better inter‐ and intraobserver agreement in the axial plane view. Clinical significance: Based on the presented analysis, we highly recommend that further studies use axial T(2) mapping due to the higher intra‐ and interreader agreement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7496420
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74964202020-09-25 Compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: Axial vs sagittal T(2) mapping Raudner, Marcus Schreiner, Markus M. Weber, Michael Juras, Vladimir Stelzeneder, David Windhager, Reinhard Trattnig, Siegfried J Orthop Res Research Articles The aim of this study was to assess T(2) values of the lumbar intervertebral discs in the axial and sagittal plane views and assess their respective interobserver reliability. The lumbar intervertebral discs of 23 symptomatic patients (11 female; 12 male; mean age, 44.1 ± 10.6; range, 24‐64 years) were examined at 3T. Region‐of‐interest (ROI) analysis was performed on axial and sagittal T(2) maps by two independent observers. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was assessed for every ROI. The interobserver agreement was excellent for the nucleus pulposus (NP) in the sagittal (0.951; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.926‐0.968) and axial (0.921; 95% CI, 0.845‐0.955) planes. The posterior 20% region showed a higher ICC in the axial vs the sagittal assessment (0.845; 95% CI, 0.704‐0.911 vs 0.819; 95% CI, 0.744‐0.873). The same was true for the posterior 10%, with the axial ROI showing a higher ICC (0.923; 95% CI, 0.865‐0.953 vs 0.628; 95% CI, 0.495‐0.732). The intraobserver agreement was excellent for every ROI except the sagittal 10% region, which showed good performance (0.869; 95% CI, 0.813‐0.909). The sagittal nucleus pulposus was the best‐performing ROI with regard to intra‐ and interobserver agreement in the T(2) assessment of the lumbar intervertebral disc. However, the axial NP showed more stable agreements overall and across the value range. In addition, the annular analysis showed better inter‐ and intraobserver agreement in the axial plane view. Clinical significance: Based on the presented analysis, we highly recommend that further studies use axial T(2) mapping due to the higher intra‐ and interreader agreement. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-05 2020-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7496420/ /pubmed/32293737 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.24691 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Raudner, Marcus
Schreiner, Markus M.
Weber, Michael
Juras, Vladimir
Stelzeneder, David
Windhager, Reinhard
Trattnig, Siegfried
Compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: Axial vs sagittal T(2) mapping
title Compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: Axial vs sagittal T(2) mapping
title_full Compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: Axial vs sagittal T(2) mapping
title_fullStr Compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: Axial vs sagittal T(2) mapping
title_full_unstemmed Compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: Axial vs sagittal T(2) mapping
title_short Compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: Axial vs sagittal T(2) mapping
title_sort compositional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the intervertebral disc: axial vs sagittal t(2) mapping
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7496420/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293737
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.24691
work_keys_str_mv AT raudnermarcus compositionalmagneticresonanceimagingintheevaluationoftheintervertebraldiscaxialvssagittalt2mapping
AT schreinermarkusm compositionalmagneticresonanceimagingintheevaluationoftheintervertebraldiscaxialvssagittalt2mapping
AT webermichael compositionalmagneticresonanceimagingintheevaluationoftheintervertebraldiscaxialvssagittalt2mapping
AT jurasvladimir compositionalmagneticresonanceimagingintheevaluationoftheintervertebraldiscaxialvssagittalt2mapping
AT stelzenederdavid compositionalmagneticresonanceimagingintheevaluationoftheintervertebraldiscaxialvssagittalt2mapping
AT windhagerreinhard compositionalmagneticresonanceimagingintheevaluationoftheintervertebraldiscaxialvssagittalt2mapping
AT trattnigsiegfried compositionalmagneticresonanceimagingintheevaluationoftheintervertebraldiscaxialvssagittalt2mapping