常规直立成像评估退行性腰椎管狭窄:仰卧位MRI遗漏退行性腰椎滑脱的发生率。

Q Medicine
Brad Segebarth, Mark F Kurd, Priscilla H Haug, Rick Davis
{"title":"常规直立成像评估退行性腰椎管狭窄:仰卧位MRI遗漏退行性腰椎滑脱的发生率。","authors":"Brad Segebarth,&nbsp;Mark F Kurd,&nbsp;Priscilla H Haug,&nbsp;Rick Davis","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000000205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with lumbar stenosis is a well-studied pathology and diagnosis is most commonly determined by a combination of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and standing radiographs. However, routine upright imaging is not universally accepted as standard in all practices. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study investigating the incidence of missed diagnosis of DS evident only on standing lateral or dynamic radiographs when compared with sagittal alignment on MRI.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The authors hypothesize that supine MRI evaluation alone in lumbar degenerative disease will significantly underestimate the incidence of DS. Secondary hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference in detecting spondylolisthesis when comparing dynamic flexion-extension radiographs to standing lateral radiographs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated all patients presenting to spine clinic for degenerative lumbar conditions from July 2004 to July 2006 who had an MRI, upright lateral, and flexion-extension radiographs at our institution. The incidence of DS found on dynamic flexion-extension radiographs but not on MRI was determined. We then reviewed each and compared flexion-extension versus standing lateral views to determine whether there was any significant difference in detecting anterolisthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 416 patients with eligible studies, 109 were found to have DS at levels L4-L5, L5-S1, or L3-L4 based on flexion-extension radiographs. Of these, only 78 were found to have a corresponding spondylolisthesis on MRI, leaving 31/109 (28%) of DS levels undiagnosed on MRI. No additional anterolisthesis cases were detected on standing flexion-extension verses standing lateral radiographs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine standing lateral radiographs should be standard practice to identify DS, as nearly 1/3 of cases will be missed on supine MRI. This may have implications on whether or not an arthrodesis is performed on those patients requiring lumbar decompression. Flexion-extension radiographs demonstrated no added value compared with standing lateral x-rays for the purposes of diagnosing DS.</p>","PeriodicalId":50043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques","volume":"28 10","pages":"394-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000205","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Routine Upright Imaging for Evaluating Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis: Incidence of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Missed on Supine MRI.\",\"authors\":\"Brad Segebarth,&nbsp;Mark F Kurd,&nbsp;Priscilla H Haug,&nbsp;Rick Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000000205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with lumbar stenosis is a well-studied pathology and diagnosis is most commonly determined by a combination of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and standing radiographs. However, routine upright imaging is not universally accepted as standard in all practices. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study investigating the incidence of missed diagnosis of DS evident only on standing lateral or dynamic radiographs when compared with sagittal alignment on MRI.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The authors hypothesize that supine MRI evaluation alone in lumbar degenerative disease will significantly underestimate the incidence of DS. Secondary hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference in detecting spondylolisthesis when comparing dynamic flexion-extension radiographs to standing lateral radiographs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated all patients presenting to spine clinic for degenerative lumbar conditions from July 2004 to July 2006 who had an MRI, upright lateral, and flexion-extension radiographs at our institution. The incidence of DS found on dynamic flexion-extension radiographs but not on MRI was determined. We then reviewed each and compared flexion-extension versus standing lateral views to determine whether there was any significant difference in detecting anterolisthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 416 patients with eligible studies, 109 were found to have DS at levels L4-L5, L5-S1, or L3-L4 based on flexion-extension radiographs. Of these, only 78 were found to have a corresponding spondylolisthesis on MRI, leaving 31/109 (28%) of DS levels undiagnosed on MRI. No additional anterolisthesis cases were detected on standing flexion-extension verses standing lateral radiographs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine standing lateral radiographs should be standard practice to identify DS, as nearly 1/3 of cases will be missed on supine MRI. This may have implications on whether or not an arthrodesis is performed on those patients requiring lumbar decompression. Flexion-extension radiographs demonstrated no added value compared with standing lateral x-rays for the purposes of diagnosing DS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques\",\"volume\":\"28 10\",\"pages\":\"394-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000205\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000205\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

研究设计:回顾性队列研究。背景:退行性椎体滑脱(DS)伴腰椎管狭窄是一种被充分研究的病理,诊断通常由磁共振成像(MRI)和站立x线片联合确定。然而,常规的直立成像并没有被普遍接受为所有实践的标准。据我们所知,目前还没有研究调查与MRI矢状位对齐相比,仅在站立侧位或动态x线片上明显漏诊的DS的发生率。目的:作者假设单独仰卧位MRI评估腰椎退行性疾病会显著低估退行性椎体滑移的发生率。第二个假设是,动态屈伸x线片与站立侧位x线片在检测脊柱滑脱方面没有显著差异。方法:我们回顾性评估了2004年7月至2006年7月期间所有在我院接受MRI、直立侧位和屈伸片检查的腰椎退行性疾病患者。在动态屈伸x线片上发现DS的发生率,而在MRI上没有发现。然后我们回顾了每一个,并比较了屈伸和站立侧位视图,以确定在检测前滑脱方面是否有任何显着差异。结果:在416例符合条件的研究中,根据屈伸x线片,109例患者在L4-L5、L5-S1或L3-L4水平出现退行性椎体滑移。其中,只有78例在MRI上发现相应的脊柱滑脱,其余31/109(28%)的DS水平未在MRI上诊断出来。站立屈伸和站立侧位片未发现额外的前脱位病例。结论:常规的站立侧位x线片应该是识别退行性椎体滑移的标准做法,因为近1/3的病例会在仰卧位MRI上被遗漏。这可能对需要腰椎减压的患者是否进行关节融合术有影响。与站立侧位x线片相比,屈伸x线片在诊断退行性椎体滑移方面没有附加价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Routine Upright Imaging for Evaluating Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis: Incidence of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Missed on Supine MRI.

Study design: A retrospective cohort.

Background: Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with lumbar stenosis is a well-studied pathology and diagnosis is most commonly determined by a combination of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and standing radiographs. However, routine upright imaging is not universally accepted as standard in all practices. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study investigating the incidence of missed diagnosis of DS evident only on standing lateral or dynamic radiographs when compared with sagittal alignment on MRI.

Objective: The authors hypothesize that supine MRI evaluation alone in lumbar degenerative disease will significantly underestimate the incidence of DS. Secondary hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference in detecting spondylolisthesis when comparing dynamic flexion-extension radiographs to standing lateral radiographs.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients presenting to spine clinic for degenerative lumbar conditions from July 2004 to July 2006 who had an MRI, upright lateral, and flexion-extension radiographs at our institution. The incidence of DS found on dynamic flexion-extension radiographs but not on MRI was determined. We then reviewed each and compared flexion-extension versus standing lateral views to determine whether there was any significant difference in detecting anterolisthesis.

Results: Of 416 patients with eligible studies, 109 were found to have DS at levels L4-L5, L5-S1, or L3-L4 based on flexion-extension radiographs. Of these, only 78 were found to have a corresponding spondylolisthesis on MRI, leaving 31/109 (28%) of DS levels undiagnosed on MRI. No additional anterolisthesis cases were detected on standing flexion-extension verses standing lateral radiographs.

Conclusions: Routine standing lateral radiographs should be standard practice to identify DS, as nearly 1/3 of cases will be missed on supine MRI. This may have implications on whether or not an arthrodesis is performed on those patients requiring lumbar decompression. Flexion-extension radiographs demonstrated no added value compared with standing lateral x-rays for the purposes of diagnosing DS.

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
CiteScore
2.16
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques features peer-reviewed original articles on diagnosis, management, and surgery for spinal problems. Topics include degenerative disorders, spinal trauma, diagnostic anesthetic blocks, metastatic tumor spinal replacements, management of pain syndromes, and the use of imaging techniques in evaluating lumbar spine disorder. The journal also presents thoroughly documented case reports.
×
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