Reliability of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging methods in the assessment of spinal canal stenosis and cord compression in cervical myelopathy

Spine

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 245-252

  Karpova, Alina ^a   Arun, Ranganathan ^a   Davis, Aileen M ^c   Kulkarni, Abhaya V ^d,e   Mikulis, David J ^b   Sooyong, Chua ^a   Rabin, Doron ^a   Craciunas, Sorin ^a   Smith, Sean R ^a   Hansen, Mitchell A ^a   George, Joshi ^a   Fehlings, Michael G ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b TORONTO WESTERN HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

cervical canal stenosis; cord compression; inter and intraobserver reliability; quantitative MRI

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CERVICAL MYELOPATHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; JAPANESE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION SCORE; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS; WALKING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINAL CANAL; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPINAL STENOSIS;

EID: 84873405142     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182672307     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Montgomery DM, Brower RS . Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinical syndrome and natural history. [Review] [54 refs] . Orthop Clin North Am 1992; 23 : 487-93
2. Cadotte DW, Karpova A, Fehlings MG . Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Surgical outcomes in the elderly. Int J Clin Rheumatol 2010; 5 : 327-37
3. Chen CJ, Lyu RK, Lee ST, et al. Intramedullary high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prediction of prognosis with type of intensity. Radiol 2001; 221 : 789-94
4. Okada Y, Ikata T, Yamada H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging study on the results of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 1993; 18 : 2024-9 (Pubitemid 23315907)
5. Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, et al. Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and MRI of the spinal cord . Spine 2001; 26 : 1238-45 (Pubitemid 32520496)
6. Fukushima T, Ikata T, Taoka Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging study on spinal cord plasticity in patients with cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 1991; 16 (suppl) : S534-8
7. Nagata K, Kiyonaga K, Ohashi MS, et al. Clinical value of magnetic resonance imaging for cervical myelopathy. Spine 1990; 15 : 1089-96
8. Nagata K, Ohashi T, Abe J, et al. Cervical myelopathy in elderly patients: Clinical results and MRI fi ndings before and after decompression surgery. Spinal Cord 1996; 34 : 220-6 (Pubitemid 26186912)
9. Uchida K, Nakajima H, Sato R, et al., Multivariate analysis of the neurological outcome of surgery for cervical compressive myelopathy. J Orthop Sci 2005; 10 : 564-73 (Pubitemid 41712704)
10. Houten JK, Cooper PR . Laminectomy and posterior cervical plating for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossifi cation of the posterior longitudinal ligament: Effects on cervical alignment, spinal cord compression, and neurological outcome. Neurosurg 2003; 52 : 1081-7; discussion 1087-8
11. Singh A, Crockard HA, Platts A, et al. Clinical and radiological correlates of severity and surgery-related outcome in cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg 2001; 94 (suppl) : 189-98 (Pubitemid 32786044)
12. Matsuyama Y, Kawakami N, Mimatsu K . Spinal cord expansion after decompression in cervical myelopathy. Investigation by computed tomography, myelography, and ultrasonography. Spine 1995; 20 : 1657-63
13. Yone K, Sakou T, Yanase M, et al. Preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance image evaluations of the spinal cord in cervical myelopathy. Spine 1992; 17 (suppl) : S388-92
14. Chung S, Chung KH . Factors affecting the surgical results of expansive laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy . Int Orthop 2002; 26 : 334-8 (Pubitemid 36069539)
15. Czervionke LF, Czervionke JM, Daniels DL, et al. Characteristic features of MR truncation artifacts . AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1988; 9 : 815-24
16. Breger RK, Kass CL, Yu EG, et al. Truncation artefact in MR images of the intervertebral disk. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1988; 9 : 825-8
17. Sherman JL, Citrin CM, Gangarosa RE, et al. The MR appearance of CSF pulsation in the spinal canal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1986; 7 : 879-84 (Pubitemid 17172048)
18. Rubin JB, Enzmann DR . Imaging of spinal CFS pulsation by 2DFT MR: Signifi cance during clinical imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1987; 8 : 297-306 (Pubitemid 17039533)
19. Miura J, Doita M, Miyata K, et al. Dynamic evaluation of the spinal cord in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy using a kinematic magnetic resonance imaging technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22 : 8-13
20. Matsuda Y, Shibata T, Oki S, et al. Outcomes of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy in patients more than 75 years of age . Spine 1999; 24 : 529-34 (Pubitemid 29136043)
21. Yukawa Y, Kato F, Yoshihara H, et al. MR T2 image classifi cation in cervical compression myelopathy: predictor of surgical outcomes . Spine 2007 ; 32 : 1675-8; discussion 1679 (Pubitemid 47051853)
22. Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurg . 2003; 52 : 122-6; discussion 126 (Pubitemid 36098660)
23. Wada E, Ohmura M, Yonenobu K . Intramedullary changes of the spinal cord in cervical spondylotic myelopathy . Spine 1995; 20 : 2226-32
24. Fernández de Rota JJ, Meschian S, Fernández de Rota A, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy due to chronic compression: The role of signal intensity changes in magnetic resonance images. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6 : 17-22
25. Shin JJ, Jin BH, Kim KS, et al. Intramedullary high signal intensity and neurological status as prognostic factors in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 10 : 1687-94
26. Ahn JS, Lee JK, Kim BK . Prognostic factors that affect the surgical outcome of the laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Surg 2010; 2 : 98-104
27. Fehlings MG, Furlan JC, Massicotte EM . Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of maximum canal compromise and spinal cord compression for evaluation of acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury. Spine 2006; 31 : 1719-25 (Pubitemid 43999971)
28. Furlan JC, Fehlings MG, Massicotte EM, et al. A quantitative and reproducible method to assess cord compression and canal stenosis after cervical spine trauma Spine 2007; 32 : 2083-91
29. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, et al. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disorders . 1991; 4 : 286-95
30. Kraemer HC, Komera AF . Statistical alternatives in assessing reliability, consistency and individual differences for quantitative measures: Application to behavioral measures of neonates. Psychol Bull 1976; 83 : 914-21
31. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A . Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Medi 1998; 17 : 101-10 (Pubitemid 28020212)
32. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL . Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bull 1979; 86 : 420-8
33. Burdock EI, Fleiss JL, Hardesty AS. A new view of interobserver agreement. Perspect Psychol 1963; 16 : 373-84
34. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coeffi cient and the SEM. J Strength Conditioning Res 2005; 19 : 231-40 (Pubitemid 40417282)
35. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972; 95 : 87-100
36. Singh A, Crockard HA . Quantitative assessment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a simple walking test. Lancet 1999; 354 : 370-3 (Pubitemid 29355753)
37. Singh A, Crockard HA . Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement. J Outcome Measures 2001; 5 : 798-818
38. Karpova A, Ranganathan A, Davis AM, et al. Predictors of outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy Spine In press