Inter- and intra-observer variability of a cervical OPLL classification using reconstructed CT images

Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 8-12

  Chang, Han ^a   Kong, Chae Gwan ^b   Won, Ho Yeon ^b   Kim, Ju Hwan ^b   Park, Jong Beom ^b  

^a Mirae Hospital   (South Korea)

^b Uijeongbu St Mary's Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Classification; Computed tomography; Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; Reliability

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; LIGAMENT CALCINOSIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; OSSIFICATION OF POSTERIOR LONGITUDINAL LIGAMENT; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77954546104     PISSN: 2005291X     EISSN: 20054408     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4055/cios.2010.2.1.8     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Matsunaga S, Kukita M, Hayashi K, et al. Pathogenesis of myelopathy in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(2 Suppl): 168-72.
2. Morio Y, Nagashima H, Teshima R, Nawata K. Radiological pathogenesis of cervical myelopathy in 60 consecutive patients with cervical ossifi cation of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spinal Cord. 1999;37(12):853-7.
3. Chiba K, Ogawa Y, Ishii K, et al. Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: average 14-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(26):2998-3005.
4. Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, et al. Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossifi cation of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Part 2: Advantages of anterior decompression and fusion over laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(6):654-60.
5. Tsuyama N. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;(184):71-84.
6. Svanholm H, Starklint H, Gundersen HJ, Fabricius J, Barlebo H, Olsen S. Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS. 1989;97(8):689-98.
7. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Bridwell KH, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the classification of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(8):1097-106.
8. Mizuno J, Nakagawa H. Ossified posterior longitudinal ligament: management strategies and outcomes. Spine J. 2006;6(6 Suppl):282-8.
9. Jain SK, Salunke PS, Vyas KH, Behari SS, Banerji D, Jain VK. Multisegmental cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior vs posterior approach. Neurol India. 2005;53(3):283-5.
10. Morimoto T, Uranishi R, Nakase H, Kawaguchi S, Hoshido T, Sakaki T. Extensive cervical laminoplasty for patients with long segment OPLL in the cervical spine: an alternative to the anterior approach. J Clin Neurosci. 2000;7(3):217-22.
11. Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, et al. Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossifi cation of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Part 1: Clinical results and limitations of laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(6):647-53.