SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2015 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 6

Reliability and variability in the interpretation of lumbar high intensity zone

Shun-Wu FAN
Xiang-Qian FANG
Yun-Jian LİU
He-Jun YU
Yin-Jiang LU
Chao LIU
Pages
606–613
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The parameters of HIZ, including signal intensity (SI) and area ratio (HIZ%), were used to assess the interobserver variation of HIZ.Results: The overall interobserver agreement for visual assessments was substantial (?=0.62 at L4-5 and 0.61 at L5-S1), and intraobserver agreement was excellent (?=0.84 at L4-5 and 0.86 at L5-S1).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of high intensity zone (HIZ) and to assess discrepancy in the interpretation, as well as investigate the effects of parameters of HIZ on interobserver variation.Methods: Four spine surgeons made independent observations on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from 207 consecutive patients from 3 institutions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The corresponding MRI was provided to 2 additional spine surgeons for quantitative measurements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The parameters of HIZ, including signal intensity (SI) and area ratio (HIZ%), were used to assess the interobserver variation of HIZ.Results: The overall interobserver agreement for visual assessments was substantial (?=0.62 at L4-5 and 0.61 at L5-S1), and intraobserver agreement was excellent (?=0.84 at L4-5 and 0.86 at L5-S1).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of high intensity zone (HIZ) and to assess discrepancy in the interpretation, as well as investigate the effects of parameters of HIZ on interobserver variation.Methods: Four spine surgeons made independent observations on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from 207 consecutive patients from 3 institutions. The ? statistic was used to characterize interand intraobserver reliability for visual assessments of HIZ. The corresponding MRI was provided to 2 additional spine surgeons for quantitative measurements. The parameters of HIZ, including signal intensity (SI) and area ratio (HIZ%), were used to assess the interobserver variation of HIZ.Results: The overall interobserver agreement for visual assessments was substantial (?=0.62 at L4-5 and 0.61 at L5-S1), and intraobserver agreement was excellent (?=0.84 at L4-5 and 0.86 at L5-S1). Of 93 observed HIZ, 17 instances (18.3%) were agreed upon by all visual observers. The SI with full agreement was significantly brighter than all the others (p<0.01). The HIZ% with 2 agreements was significantly smaller than those with 4 agreements (p=0.04) and 3 agreements (p=0.03). Although fewer observers with consensus were associated with smaller HIZ%, the difference was not significant (p>0.05).Conclusion: The reliability in the interpretation of HIZ was sufficient for spine surgeons with differing levels of experience. This study highlighted that signal intensity was the primary cause of variability in visual observation

🔖

Cite This Article

FAN, S., FANG, X., LİU, Y., YU, H., LU, Y., LIU, C. (2015). Reliability and variability in the interpretation of lumbar high intensity zone. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 6, 606–613. https://ajindex.com/articles/353578

References (12)

  1. Brant-Zawadzki MN, Jensen MC, Obuchowski N, Ross JS, Modic MT. Interobserver and intraobserver vari- ability in interpretation of lumbar disc abnormalities. A comparison of two nomenclatures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1257-64.
  2. Raininko R, Manninen H, Battié MC, Gibbons LE, Gill K, Fisher LD. Observer variability in the assess- ment of disc degeneration on magnetic resonance images of the lumbar and thoracic spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1029-35. Feinstein AR. An additional basic science for clinical med- icine: IV. The development of clinimetrics. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:843-8.
  3. Espeland A, Korsbrekke K, Albrektsen G, Larsen JL. Ob- server variation in plain radiography of the lumbosacral spine. Br J Radiol 1998;71:366-75.
  4. Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Moderate versus mediocre: the re- liability of spine MR data interpretations. Radiology 2009;250:15-7. van Rijn JC, Klemetsö N, Reitsma JB, Majoie CB, Huls- mans FJ, Peul WC, et al. Observer variation in MRI evalu- ation of patients suspected of lumbar disk herniation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:299-303.
  5. Aprill C, Bogduk N. High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imag- ing. Br J Radiol 1992;65:361-9.
  6. Schellhas KP, Pollei SR, Gundry CR, Heithoff KB. Lum- bar disc high-intensity zone. Correlation of magnetic res- onance imaging and discography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:79-86.
  7. Lam KS, Carlin D, Mulholland RC. Lumbar disc high- intensity zone: the value and significance of provocative discography in the determination of the discogenic pain source. Eur Spine J 2000;9:36-41.
  8. Peng B, Hou S, Wu W, Zhang C, Yang Y. The pathogenesis and clinical significance of a high-intensity zone (HIZ) of lumbar intervertebral disc on MR imaging in the patient with discogenic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2006;15:583-7.
  9. Ricketson R, Simmons JW, Hauser BO. The prolapsed intervertebral disc. The high-intensity zone with discogra- phy correlation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:2758-62.
  10. Ito M, Incorvaia KM, Yu SF, Fredrickson BE, Yuan HA, Rosenbaum AE. Predictive signs of discogenic lumbar pain on magnetic resonance imaging with discography correlation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:1252-60.
  11. Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. MR imag- ing of the lumbar spine: prevalence of intervertebral disk extrusion and sequestration, nerve root compression, end plate abnormalities, and osteoarthritis of the facet joints in asymptomatic volunteers. Radiology 1998;209:661-6.
  12. Carrino JA, Lurie JD,