Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2020-07-07T19:17:55Z
dc.date.available2020-07-07T19:17:55Z
dc.date.created2019-04-11T14:21:48Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationBerg, Linda Thoresen, Hanne Neckelmann, Gesche F Furunes, Håvard Hellum, Christian Espeland, Ansgar . Facet arthropathy evaluation: CT or MRI?. European Radiology. 2019, 29(9), 4990-4998
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/77600
dc.description.abstractObjective To assess the reliability of lumbar facet arthropathy evaluation with computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with and without lumbar disc prosthesis and to estimate the reliability for individual CT and MRI findings indicating facet arthropathy. Methods Metal-artifact reducing CT and MRI protocols were performed at follow-up of 114 chronic back pain patients treated with (n = 66) or without (n = 48) lumbar disc prosthesis. Three experienced radiologists independently rated facet joint space narrowing, osteophyte/hypertrophy, erosions, subchondral cysts, and total grade facet arthropathy at each of the three lower lumbar levels on both CT and MRI, using Weishaupt et al’s rating system. CT and MRI examinations were randomly mixed and rated independently. Findings were dichotomized before analysis. Overall kappa and (due to low prevalence) prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa were calculated to assess interobserver agreement. Results Interobserver agreement on total grade facet arthropathy was moderate at all levels with CT (kappa 0.47–0.48) and poor to fair with MRI (kappa 0.20–0.32). Mean prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa was lower for osteophyte/hypertrophy versus other individual findings (CT 0.58 versus 0.79–0.86, MRI 0.35 versus 0.81–0.90), higher with CT versus MRI when rating osteophyte/hypertrophy (0.58 versus 0.35) and total grade facet arthropathy (0.54 versus 0.31), and generally similar at levels with versus levels without disc prosthesis. Conclusion Interobserver agreement on facet arthropathy was moderate with CT and better with CT than with MRI. Disc prosthesis did not influence agreement. A more reliable grading of facet arthropathy requires a more consistent evaluation of osteophytes/hypertrophy.
dc.languageEN
dc.titleFacet arthropathy evaluation: CT or MRI?
dc.typeJournal article
dc.creator.authorBerg, Linda
dc.creator.authorThoresen, Hanne
dc.creator.authorNeckelmann, Gesche F
dc.creator.authorFurunes, Håvard
dc.creator.authorHellum, Christian
dc.creator.authorEspeland, Ansgar
cristin.unitcode185,53,42,10
cristin.unitnameAvdeling for fysikalsk medisin og rehabilitering
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode2
dc.identifier.cristin1691713
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=European Radiology&rft.volume=29&rft.spage=4990&rft.date=2019
dc.identifier.jtitleEuropean Radiology
dc.identifier.volume29
dc.identifier.issue9
dc.identifier.startpage4990
dc.identifier.endpage4998
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06047-5
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-80689
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.issn0938-7994
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/77600/2/Facet%2Barthropathy%2Bevaluation.pdf
dc.type.versionAcceptedVersion


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata