• Spine · Dec 2017

    Comparative Study

    Comparative Analysis of Three Imaging Modalities for Evaluation of Cervical Sagittal Alignment Parameters: A Validity and Reliability Study.

    • Han-Dong Lee, Chang-Hoon Jeon, Nam-Su Chung, and Heon-Ju Kwon.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
    • Spine. 2017 Dec 15; 42 (24): 1901-1907.

    Study DesignThis was a radiologic validity and reliability study.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the validity and reliability of measurements from standing lateral cervical radiography (XR), reconstructed midsagittal images of supine cervical computerized tomography (CT) scans, and supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluating C2-C7 distance (C27 SVA), C2-C7 Cobb angle (CL), T1 slope (T1S), thoracic inlet angle (TIA), and neck tilt (NT).Summary Of Background DataXR is the criterion standard imaging modality for measuring cervical sagittal alignment parameters. However, overlapping bony structures and soft tissue often make the upper end of the manubrium and cervicothoracic junction indiscernible. CT and MRI can overcome this limitation, but their reliability and validity have not been fully elucidated.MethodsFifty sets of three examinations from our database have been randomly selected. Three experienced spinal surgeons independently measured C27 SVA, CL, T1S, TIA, and NT. Paired t test and Pearson correlation were used to analyze the validity of CT and MRI in comparison with that of XR. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsThe paired t test confirmed the similarities of all CT (except C27 SVA) and MR parameters (except C27 SVA and CL) to the XR parameters (all P > 0.05). All parameters except C27 SVA were correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.523-0.913). Correlation was highest between CT and MRI and lowest between CT and XR. All three imaging modalities had excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability (ICC range: 0.770-0.999). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were highest with MRI and lowest with XR.ConclusionCT and especially MRI were more reliable than XR for evaluating cervical sagittal alignment parameters. Considering the reliability and radiation exposure, MRI is a good alternative to XR for measuring cervical sagittal alignment parameters, especially thoracic inlet alignment.Level Of Evidence4.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.