4.2 Article

Whole spine localizers of magnetic resonance imaging detect unexpected vertebral fractures

Journal

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
Volume 60, Issue 6, Pages 742-748

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0284185118796673

Keywords

Spinal fracture; magnetic resonance imaging; MRI; aged; osteoporotic fractures; diagnosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Whole spine localizers (WS-loc) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are performed for enumeration of the vertebrae but they can be also used for the evaluation of the spine. Purpose To assess the accuracy of fracture detection using WS-locs of MRI and compare the findings with standard high-resolution short tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequences, and to determine whether the review of WS-locs is useful and if additional information can be gained by assessing the thoracic spine section of the WS-locs. Material and Methods A total of 298 magnetic resonance (MR) examinations of the lumbar spine with WS-locs were evaluated. Two independent readers reviewed the images. In case of fracture detection, further characterization of the fracture was performed. To assess inter-reader agreement, unweighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and Phi coefficients were calculated. Results The study sample included 187 female and 111 male patients (age range = 65-94 years; median age = 75.0 years). The WS-locs detected 42 fractures of the lumbar spine and 36 of the thoracic spine. Inter-reader agreement for fracture detection in the lumbar and thoracic spine was strong (K = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.78-0.95, Phi = 0.87, and K = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.79-0.96, Phi = 0.88, respectively). Conclusion WS-locs from MR examinations of the lumbar spine provide a good diagnostic tool for the detection and evaluation of unsuspected vertebral fractures. WS-locs show strong inter-reader agreement for fracture detection in the thoracic and lumbar spine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available