Cargando…

How Should We Grade Cervical Disk Degeneration? A Comparison of Two Popular Classification Systems

INTRODUCTION: Despite being originally developed for the evaluation of lumbar disk degeneration, the Pfirrmann classification has emerged as the most popular classification system for cervical disk degeneration. However, with the Suzuki classification, a new classification system that is specificall...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Urbanschitz, Lukas, Bensler, Susanne, Merat, Sascha, Lenz, Christopher G., Eid, Karim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8668218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34966859
http://dx.doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2021-0048
_version_ 1784614522809483264
author Urbanschitz, Lukas
Bensler, Susanne
Merat, Sascha
Lenz, Christopher G.
Eid, Karim
author_facet Urbanschitz, Lukas
Bensler, Susanne
Merat, Sascha
Lenz, Christopher G.
Eid, Karim
author_sort Urbanschitz, Lukas
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Despite being originally developed for the evaluation of lumbar disk degeneration, the Pfirrmann classification has emerged as the most popular classification system for cervical disk degeneration. However, with the Suzuki classification, a new classification system that is specifically tailored for the evaluation of cervical disk disease was introduced. In this study, we aim to evaluate differences in inter- and intraobserver reliability of both classifications in a head-to-head comparison. METHODS: In total, we have evaluated 120 cervical disks within 40 patients via magnetic resonance imaging according to the Pfirrmann and Suzuki classification. The degree of disk degeneration was evaluated by two independent musculoskeletal radiologists. After 6 months, the classification was reassessed to evaluate the intraobserver reliability. The inter- and intraobserver reliabilities were then calculated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The inter- and intraobserver reliability provided a significant agreement between all ratings in Pfirrmann as well as the Suzuki classification (p>0.001). The interobserver reliability was determined to be fair in both the Suzuki classification (κ=0.290) and the Pfirrmann classification (κ=0.265). The intraobserver reliability was substantial in the Suzuki classification (κ=0.798), while it was almost perfect in the Pfirrmann classification (κ=0.858). CONCLUSIONS: Although not designed for the evaluation of cervical disk degeneration, the Pfirrmann classification yielded equal inter- and higher intraobserver reliability. Both classification systems are viable options for the grading of cervical disk degeneration. While the Pfirrmann classification has the advantage of being better established, the Suzuki classification may be clinically superior due to a better representation of cervical disk degeneration and the consideration of disk bulging for the classification of cervical disk degeneration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8668218
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86682182021-12-28 How Should We Grade Cervical Disk Degeneration? A Comparison of Two Popular Classification Systems Urbanschitz, Lukas Bensler, Susanne Merat, Sascha Lenz, Christopher G. Eid, Karim Spine Surg Relat Res Original Article INTRODUCTION: Despite being originally developed for the evaluation of lumbar disk degeneration, the Pfirrmann classification has emerged as the most popular classification system for cervical disk degeneration. However, with the Suzuki classification, a new classification system that is specifically tailored for the evaluation of cervical disk disease was introduced. In this study, we aim to evaluate differences in inter- and intraobserver reliability of both classifications in a head-to-head comparison. METHODS: In total, we have evaluated 120 cervical disks within 40 patients via magnetic resonance imaging according to the Pfirrmann and Suzuki classification. The degree of disk degeneration was evaluated by two independent musculoskeletal radiologists. After 6 months, the classification was reassessed to evaluate the intraobserver reliability. The inter- and intraobserver reliabilities were then calculated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The inter- and intraobserver reliability provided a significant agreement between all ratings in Pfirrmann as well as the Suzuki classification (p>0.001). The interobserver reliability was determined to be fair in both the Suzuki classification (κ=0.290) and the Pfirrmann classification (κ=0.265). The intraobserver reliability was substantial in the Suzuki classification (κ=0.798), while it was almost perfect in the Pfirrmann classification (κ=0.858). CONCLUSIONS: Although not designed for the evaluation of cervical disk degeneration, the Pfirrmann classification yielded equal inter- and higher intraobserver reliability. Both classification systems are viable options for the grading of cervical disk degeneration. While the Pfirrmann classification has the advantage of being better established, the Suzuki classification may be clinically superior due to a better representation of cervical disk degeneration and the consideration of disk bulging for the classification of cervical disk degeneration. The Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research 2021-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8668218/ /pubmed/34966859 http://dx.doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2021-0048 Text en Copyright © 2021 by The Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Spine Surgery and Related Research is an Open Access journal distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view the details of this license, please visit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Urbanschitz, Lukas
Bensler, Susanne
Merat, Sascha
Lenz, Christopher G.
Eid, Karim
How Should We Grade Cervical Disk Degeneration? A Comparison of Two Popular Classification Systems
title How Should We Grade Cervical Disk Degeneration? A Comparison of Two Popular Classification Systems
title_full How Should We Grade Cervical Disk Degeneration? A Comparison of Two Popular Classification Systems
title_fullStr How Should We Grade Cervical Disk Degeneration? A Comparison of Two Popular Classification Systems
title_full_unstemmed How Should We Grade Cervical Disk Degeneration? A Comparison of Two Popular Classification Systems
title_short How Should We Grade Cervical Disk Degeneration? A Comparison of Two Popular Classification Systems
title_sort how should we grade cervical disk degeneration? a comparison of two popular classification systems
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8668218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34966859
http://dx.doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2021-0048
work_keys_str_mv AT urbanschitzlukas howshouldwegradecervicaldiskdegenerationacomparisonoftwopopularclassificationsystems
AT benslersusanne howshouldwegradecervicaldiskdegenerationacomparisonoftwopopularclassificationsystems
AT meratsascha howshouldwegradecervicaldiskdegenerationacomparisonoftwopopularclassificationsystems
AT lenzchristopherg howshouldwegradecervicaldiskdegenerationacomparisonoftwopopularclassificationsystems
AT eidkarim howshouldwegradecervicaldiskdegenerationacomparisonoftwopopularclassificationsystems