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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |