Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-09-2017 | Original Article

Comparison of inter- and intra-observer reliability among the three classification systems for cervical spinal canal stenosis

Authors: Sangbong Ko, Wonkee Choi, Seungbum Chae

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 9/2017

Abstract

Purpose

The aim is to analyze the agreement between different types of physicians in terms of the inter-observer and intra-observer reliability in addition to the agreement between the experienced and non-experienced physicians with respect to three different classification systems for diagnosis of cervical spinal canal stenosis.

Methods

Total nine doctors including experienced group of three doctors and non-experienced group of six doctors classified the patients according to three different classification in an independent, blinded manner using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to diagnose cervical canal stenosis. MRI slice included sagittal plane (midline cut) and an image slice from each horizontal plane that penetrated the right center of each disk (C3–4, C4–5, C5–6, and C6–7) was made by PPT format.

Results

For the inter-observer reliability, Vaccaro et al.’s classification system showed the excellent reproducibility, followed by Muhle et al. and Kang et al. All three classification systems showed excellent reproducibility and substantial agreement in terms of the intra-observer reliability.

Conclusions

All three classification systems showed excellent reproducibility and also displayed a substantial agreement. The classification system used by Vaccaro et al. was proven to be a method with substantial agreement both in the experienced group and the non-experienced group. It can be a useful classification system for simplifying communication among all physicians.

Meyer F, Börm W, Thomé C (2008) Degenerative cervical spinal stenosis. Current strategies in diagnosis and treatment. Dtsch Arztebl Int 105:366–372PubMedPubMedCentral

Freeman BA, Hoffler CE II, Cameron BM, Rhee JM, Bawa M, Malone DG et al (2015) A comparison of computed tomography measures for diagnosing cervical spinal stenosis associated with myelopathy: a case–control study. Asian Spine J 9:22–29CrossRef

Teresi LM, Lufkin RB, Relcher MA, Moffit BJ, Vinuela FV, Wilson GM et al (1987) Asymptomatic degenerative disc disease and spondylosis of the cervical spine: MR imaging. Radiology 164:83–88CrossRefPubMed

Muhle C, Metzner J, Weinert D, Falliner A, Brinkmann G, Mehdorn MH et al (1998) Classification system based on kinematic MR imaging in cervical spondylitic myelopathy. Am J Neuroradiol 19:1763–1771PubMed

Edwards CC 2nd, Riew KD, Anderson PA, Hillibrand AS, Vaccaro AF (2003) Cervical myelopathy. Current diagnostic and treatment strategies. Spine J 3:68–81CrossRefPubMed

Radcliff K, Kepler C, Sidhu G, Albert T, Hillibrand A, Anderson DG et al (2012) A novel, anatomically based classification of cervical stenosis. CSRS Resource Center. http://www.csrs.org/clinical-validation-of-a-novel-anatomically-based-classification-of-cervical-stenosis/

Kang YS, Lee JW, Koh YH, Hur SB, Kim SJ, Chai JW et al (2011) New MRI grading system for the cervical canal stenosis. Am J Roentgenol 197:134–140CrossRef

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed

Lee MJ, Cassinelli EH, Riew KD (2007) Prevalence of cervical spine stenosis: anatomic study in cadavers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:376–380PubMed

10.

Kang JD, Figgie MP, Bohlman HH (1994) Sagittal measurements of the cervical spine in subaxial fractures and dislocations. An analysis of two hundred and eighty-eight patients with and without neurological deficits. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1617–1628CrossRefPubMed

11.

Torg JS, Naranja RJ Jr, Pavlov H, Galinat BJ, Warren R, Stine RA (1996) The relationship of developmental narrowing of the cervical spinal canal to reversible and irreversible injury of the cervical spinal cord in football players. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:1308–1314CrossRefPubMed

12.

Gore DR (2001) Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine 26:2463–2466CrossRefPubMed

13.

Boden SD, Dodge LD, Bohlman HH, Rechtine GR (1993) Rheumatoid arthritis of the cervical spine. A long-term analysis with predictors of paralysis and recovery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1282–1297CrossRefPubMed

14.

Murone I (1974) The importance of the sagittal diameters of the cervical spinal canal in relation to spondylosis and myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 56:30–36PubMed

15.

Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Suda K, Yamagata M, Ueta T, Kato F (2016) Narrow cervical canal in 1211 asymptomatic healthy subjects: the relationship with spinal cord compression on MRI. Eur Spine J 25:2149–2154CrossRefPubMed

16.

Pavlov H, Torg JS, Robie B, Jahre C (1987) Cervical spinal stenosis: determination with vertebral body ratio method. Radiology 164:771–775CrossRefPubMed

17.

Rüegg TB, Wicki AG, Aebli N, Wisianowsky C, Krebs J (2015) The diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging measurements for assessing cervical spinal canal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 22:230–236CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kadanka Z, Bednarík J, Vohánka S, Vlach O, Stejskal L, Chaloupka R et al (2000) Conservative treatment versus surgery in spondylotic cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomized study. Eur Spine J 9:538–544CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Kadaňka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, Urbánek I, Dusek L (2011) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J 20:1533–1538CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin MW, Bransford RJ, Yoon ST, Smith JS et al (2013) Nonoperative management of cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine 38:S55–S67CrossRefPubMed

21.

Edwards WC, LaRocca SH (1983) The development segmental sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylosis. Spine 8:20–27CrossRefPubMed

22.

Lim JK, Wong HK (2004) Variation of the cervical spinal Torg ratio with gender and ethnicity. Spine J 4:396–401CrossRefPubMed

23.

Tierney RT, Maldjian C, Mattacola CG, Straub SJ, Sitler MR (2002) Cervical spine stenosis measures in normal subjects. J Athl Train 37:190–193PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Prasad SS, O’Malley M, Caplan M, Shackleford IM, Pydisetty RK (2003) MRI measurements of the cervical spine and their correlation to Pavlov’s ratio. Spine 28:1263–1268PubMed

Title: Comparison of inter- and intra-observer reliability among the three classification systems for cervical spinal canal stenosis
Authors: Sangbong Ko
Wonkee Choi
Seungbum Chae
Publication date: 01-09-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 9/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5187-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of inter- and intra-observer reliability among the three classification systems for cervical spinal canal stenosis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2017

Effect of correction surgery for cervical kyphosis on compensatory mechanisms in overall spinopelvic sagittal alignment

Which salvage fixation technique is best for the failed initial screw fixation at the cervicothoracic junction? A biomechanical comparison study

Atypical presentation of a cervical synovial cyst

Cervical spine bone density in young healthy adults as a function of sex, vertebral level and anatomic location

Factors associated with postoperative C5 palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty: retrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis

Back and neck pain prevalence and their association with physical inactivity domains in adolescents