Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-09-2019 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Musculoskeletal

Facet arthropathy evaluation: CT or MRI?

Authors: Linda Berg, Hanne Thoresen, Gesche Neckelmann, Håvard Furunes, Christian Hellum, Ansgar Espeland

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 9/2019

Abstract

Objective

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.

Key Points

• In this study, interobserver agreement on facet arthropathy (FA) severity—based on facet joint space narrowing, osteophyte/hypertrophy, erosions, and subchondral cysts—was better with CT versus MRI.

• Metal-artifact reducing CT and MRI protocols helped to improve visibility and maintain agreement when evaluating severity of FA at levels with metallic disc prosthesis.

• Agreement was poorer for severity of osteophytes/hypertrophy than for the other evaluated FA findings; improved agreement on total grade FA evaluated with CT or MRI thus requires more consistent grading of osteophytes/hypertrophy between different radiologists.

Goode AP, Carey TS, Jordan JM (2013) Low back pain and lumbar spine osteoarthritis: how are they related? Curr Rheumatol Rep 15:305CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gellhorn AC, Katz JN, Suri P (2013) Osteoarthritis of the spine: the facet joints. Nat Rev Rheumatol 9:216–224CrossRefPubMed

Zhou X, Liu Y, Zhou S et al (2016) The correlation between radiographic and pathologic grading of lumbar facet joint degeneration. BMC Med Imaging 16:27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Berg L, Hellum C, Gjertsen Ø et al (2013) Do more MRI findings imply worse disability or more intense low back pain? A cross-sectional study of candidates for lumbar disc prosthesis. Skeletal Radiol 42:1593–1602CrossRefPubMed

Endean A, Palmer KT, Coggon D (2011) Potential of magnetic resonance imaging findings to refine case definition for mechanical low back pain in epidemiological studies: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:160–169CrossRef

Varlotta GP, Lefkowitz TR, Schweitzer M et al (2011) The lumbar facet joint: a review of current knowledge: part 1: anatomy, biomechanics, and grading. Skeletal Radiol 40:13–23CrossRefPubMed

Amoretti N, Iannessi A, Lesbats V et al (2012) Imaging of intervertebral disc prostheses. Diagn Interv Imaging 93:10–21CrossRefPubMed

Murtagh RD, Quencer RM, Cohen DS, Yue JJ, Sklar EL (2009) Normal and abnormal imaging findings in lumbar total disk replacement: devices and complications. Radiographics 29:105–118CrossRefPubMed

Salzmann SN, Plais N, Shue J, Girardi FP (2017) Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:153–159CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Park CK, Ryu KS, Jee WH (2008) Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1755–1761CrossRef

11.

Hellum C, Berg L, Gjertsen Ø et al (2012) Adjacent level degeneration and facet arthropathy after disc prosthesis surgery or rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: second report of a randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:2063–2073CrossRef

12.

Siepe CJ, Zelenkov P, Sauri-Barraza JC et al (2010) The fate of facet joint and adjacent level disc degeneration following total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, X-ray, and magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1991–2003CrossRef

13.

Jarvik JG, Deyo RA (2009) Moderate versus mediocre: the reliability of spine MR data interpretations. Radiology 250:15–17CrossRefPubMed

14.

Feinstein AR (1983) An additional basic science for clinical medicine: IV. The development of clinimetrics. Ann Intern Med 99:843–848CrossRefPubMed

15.

Berg L, Neckelmann G, Gjertsen Ø et al (2012) Reliability of MRI findings in candidates for lumbar disc prosthesis. Neuroradiology 54:699–707CrossRefPubMed

16.

Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Boos N, Hodler J (1999) MR imaging and CT in osteoarthritis of the lumbar facet joints. Skeletal Radiol 28:215–219CrossRefPubMed

17.

Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN et al (2009) Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 250:161–170CrossRefPubMed

18.

Stieber J, Quirno M, Cunningham M, Errico TJ, Bendo JA (2009) The reliability of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging grading of lumbar facet arthropathy in total disc replacement patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E833–E840CrossRef

19.

Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K et al (2011) Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study. BMJ 342:d2786CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Stradiotti P, Curti A, Castellazzi G, Zerbi A (2009) Metal-related artifacts in instrumented spine. Techniques for reducing artifacts in CT and MRI: state of the art. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 1):102–108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Marshman LA, Strong G, Trewhella M, Kasis A, Friesem T (2010) Minimizing ferromagnetic artefact with metallic lumbar total disc arthroplasty devices at adjacent segments: technical note. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:252–256CrossRef

22.

Kettler A, Wilke HJ (2006) Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration. Eur Spine J 15:705–718CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sim J, Wright CC (2005) The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 85:257–268PubMed

24.

Altman D (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman& Hall-CRC, New York, pp 396–439

25.

Kalichman L, Li L, Kim DH et al (2008) Facet joint osteoarthritis and low back pain in the community-based population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2560–2565CrossRef

26.

Fujiwara A, Tamai K, Yamato M et al (1999) The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study. Eur Spine J 8:396–401CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Berg L, Gjertsen Ø, Hellum C et al (2012) Reliability of change in lumbar MRI findings over time in patients with and without disc prosthesis--comparing two different image evaluation methods. Skeletal Radiol 41:1547–1557CrossRefPubMed

28.

Espeland A, Vetti N, Kråkenes J (2013) Are two readers more reliable than one? A study of upper neck ligament scoring on magnetic resonance images. BMC Med Imaging 13:4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Wang B, Rosenthal DI, Xu C et al (2018) The effect of computer-assisted reporting on interreader variability of lumbar spine MRI degenerative findings: five readers with 30 disc levels. J Am Coll Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.12.020

30.

Furunes H, Hellum C, Espeland A et al (2018) Adjacent disc degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement or non-operative treatment: a randomized study with 8-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002712

Title: Facet arthropathy evaluation: CT or MRI?
Authors: Linda Berg
Hanne Thoresen
Gesche Neckelmann
Håvard Furunes
Christian Hellum
Ansgar Espeland
Publication date: 01-09-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06047-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Facet arthropathy evaluation: CT or MRI?

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

Comparison of TIPS alone and combined with partial splenic embolization (PSE) for the management of variceal bleeding

Evaluation of prostate MRI: can machine learning provide support where radiologists need it?

Diagnostic performance of CT in detection of metastatic cervical lymph nodes in patients with thyroid cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Correlation between MRI phenotypes and a genomic classifier of prostate cancer: preliminary findings

Can we ablate liver lesions close to large portal and hepatic veins with MR-guided HIFU? An experimental study in a porcine model

Inter-platform reproducibility of ultrasonic attenuation and backscatter coefficients in assessing NAFLD