独立的正位造影剂扩散模式不足以区分腰椎硬膜外和硬膜外扩散:一项前瞻性研究

Afrin Sagir , Thomas T. Simopoulos , Jyotsna V. Nagda , Alexandra C.G. Fonseca , Viet L. Cai , Nasir Hussain , Chen Liang , Jatinder S. Gill
{"title":"独立的正位造影剂扩散模式不足以区分腰椎硬膜外和硬膜外扩散:一项前瞻性研究","authors":"Afrin Sagir ,&nbsp;Thomas T. Simopoulos ,&nbsp;Jyotsna V. Nagda ,&nbsp;Alexandra C.G. Fonseca ,&nbsp;Viet L. Cai ,&nbsp;Nasir Hussain ,&nbsp;Chen Liang ,&nbsp;Jatinder S. Gill","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There is debate about whether a standalone anteroposterior (AP) view can distinguish epidural contrast from non-epidural contrast spread.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aims to assess the accuracy of the AP (anteroposterior) and Contralateral Oblique (CLO) views in distinguishing epidural contrast spread patterns from non-epidural contrast spread patterns.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injections consented to participate in the study. A 20-gauge Tuohy needle was advanced very close to the epidural space, and 0.5–1 ml of contrast was then injected. CLO, AP, and lateral images of non-epidural spread were saved. The AP and CLO images were randomly mixed with images from historical controls with actual epidural spread.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 24 false epidurograms in the AP and CLO views were mixed with an equal number of true epidurograms, resulting in 48 images each in the AP and the CLO views, respectively. Among the cohort of 10 experienced interventional pain physicians, the mean accuracy of correctly identifying epidural spread as epidural using the AP view alone was 51 % (SD 19 %). In addition, the accuracy of correctly identifying non-epidural spread as non-epidural using the AP view alone was 64 % (SD 15 %). Cohen's Kappa was 0.15, indicating minimal agreement between the interventionalists. In contrast, the mean accuracy of correctly identifying epidural spread as epidural using the CLO view alone was 99 % (SD 2 %). In addition, the accuracy of correctly identifying non-epidural spread as non-epidural using the CLO view alone was 96 % (SD 9 %). Excluding one outlier, the accuracy for the rest of the reviewers in determining non-epidural spread as non-epidural was 99 %. Cohens' Kappa was 0.95, indicating a high degree of agreement between the interventionalists.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study reveals that utilizing a standalone AP view without a CLO view was inadequate to distinguish epidural from non-epidural spread. Specifically, our study supports the continued use of CLO depth views to identify epidural contrast spread correctly.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100634"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standalone anteroposterior contrast spread pattern is insufficient to distinguish lumbar epidural from extradural spread: A prospective study\",\"authors\":\"Afrin Sagir ,&nbsp;Thomas T. Simopoulos ,&nbsp;Jyotsna V. Nagda ,&nbsp;Alexandra C.G. Fonseca ,&nbsp;Viet L. Cai ,&nbsp;Nasir Hussain ,&nbsp;Chen Liang ,&nbsp;Jatinder S. Gill\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There is debate about whether a standalone anteroposterior (AP) view can distinguish epidural contrast from non-epidural contrast spread.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aims to assess the accuracy of the AP (anteroposterior) and Contralateral Oblique (CLO) views in distinguishing epidural contrast spread patterns from non-epidural contrast spread patterns.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injections consented to participate in the study. A 20-gauge Tuohy needle was advanced very close to the epidural space, and 0.5–1 ml of contrast was then injected. CLO, AP, and lateral images of non-epidural spread were saved. The AP and CLO images were randomly mixed with images from historical controls with actual epidural spread.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 24 false epidurograms in the AP and CLO views were mixed with an equal number of true epidurograms, resulting in 48 images each in the AP and the CLO views, respectively. Among the cohort of 10 experienced interventional pain physicians, the mean accuracy of correctly identifying epidural spread as epidural using the AP view alone was 51 % (SD 19 %). In addition, the accuracy of correctly identifying non-epidural spread as non-epidural using the AP view alone was 64 % (SD 15 %). Cohen's Kappa was 0.15, indicating minimal agreement between the interventionalists. In contrast, the mean accuracy of correctly identifying epidural spread as epidural using the CLO view alone was 99 % (SD 2 %). In addition, the accuracy of correctly identifying non-epidural spread as non-epidural using the CLO view alone was 96 % (SD 9 %). Excluding one outlier, the accuracy for the rest of the reviewers in determining non-epidural spread as non-epidural was 99 %. Cohens' Kappa was 0.95, indicating a high degree of agreement between the interventionalists.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study reveals that utilizing a standalone AP view without a CLO view was inadequate to distinguish epidural from non-epidural spread. Specifically, our study supports the continued use of CLO depth views to identify epidural contrast spread correctly.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100634\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594425000950\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594425000950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于独立的正位(AP)视图是否可以区分硬膜外对比和非硬膜外对比扩散存在争议。目的本研究旨在评估AP(正位)和对侧斜位(CLO)视图在区分硬膜外造影剂扩散模式和非硬膜外造影剂扩散模式中的准确性。方法接受腰椎硬膜外类固醇注射的患者同意参加研究。将一根20号的Tuohy针靠近硬膜外间隙,然后注射0.5-1 ml造影剂。保存了非硬膜外扩散的CLO、AP和侧位图像。AP和CLO图像与实际硬膜外扩散的历史对照图像随机混合。结果在AP和CLO视图中,共24张假硬膜外尿图与相同数量的真硬膜外尿图混合,AP和CLO视图各48张。在10名经验丰富的介入疼痛医生队列中,仅使用AP视图正确识别硬膜外扩散为硬膜外扩散的平均准确率为51% (SD为19%)。此外,仅使用AP视图正确识别非硬膜外扩散为非硬膜外扩散的准确率为64% (SD为15%)。科恩的Kappa值为0.15,表明干预主义者之间的共识极小。相比之下,仅使用CLO视图正确识别硬膜外扩散为硬膜外扩散的平均准确率为99% (SD为2%)。此外,仅使用CLO视图正确识别非硬膜外扩散为非硬膜外扩散的准确率为96% (SD为9%)。除一个异常值外,其余评论者将非硬膜外扩散确定为非硬膜外扩散的准确率为99%。Cohens’Kappa为0.95,表明干预主义者之间的一致性很高。结论:本研究表明,使用独立的AP视图而不使用CLO视图不足以区分硬膜外和非硬膜外扩散。具体来说,我们的研究支持继续使用CLO深度视图来正确识别硬膜外造影剂扩散。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Standalone anteroposterior contrast spread pattern is insufficient to distinguish lumbar epidural from extradural spread: A prospective study

Background

There is debate about whether a standalone anteroposterior (AP) view can distinguish epidural contrast from non-epidural contrast spread.

Objectives

This study aims to assess the accuracy of the AP (anteroposterior) and Contralateral Oblique (CLO) views in distinguishing epidural contrast spread patterns from non-epidural contrast spread patterns.

Methods

Patients undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injections consented to participate in the study. A 20-gauge Tuohy needle was advanced very close to the epidural space, and 0.5–1 ml of contrast was then injected. CLO, AP, and lateral images of non-epidural spread were saved. The AP and CLO images were randomly mixed with images from historical controls with actual epidural spread.

Results

A total of 24 false epidurograms in the AP and CLO views were mixed with an equal number of true epidurograms, resulting in 48 images each in the AP and the CLO views, respectively. Among the cohort of 10 experienced interventional pain physicians, the mean accuracy of correctly identifying epidural spread as epidural using the AP view alone was 51 % (SD 19 %). In addition, the accuracy of correctly identifying non-epidural spread as non-epidural using the AP view alone was 64 % (SD 15 %). Cohen's Kappa was 0.15, indicating minimal agreement between the interventionalists. In contrast, the mean accuracy of correctly identifying epidural spread as epidural using the CLO view alone was 99 % (SD 2 %). In addition, the accuracy of correctly identifying non-epidural spread as non-epidural using the CLO view alone was 96 % (SD 9 %). Excluding one outlier, the accuracy for the rest of the reviewers in determining non-epidural spread as non-epidural was 99 %. Cohens' Kappa was 0.95, indicating a high degree of agreement between the interventionalists.

Conclusion

This study reveals that utilizing a standalone AP view without a CLO view was inadequate to distinguish epidural from non-epidural spread. Specifically, our study supports the continued use of CLO depth views to identify epidural contrast spread correctly.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信