MRI Findings of Arachnoiditis, Revisited. Is Classification Possible?

Background Prior imaging studies characterizing lumbar arachnoiditis have been based on small sample numbers and have reported inconsistent results. Purpose To review the different imaging patterns of lumbosacral arachnoiditis, their significance, and clinical implications. Study type Retrospective....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2021-09, Vol.54 (3), p.904-909
Hauptverfasser: El Homsi, Maria, Gharzeddine, Karem, Cuevas, Jordan, Arevalo‐Perez, Julio, Rebeiz, Karim, Khoury, Nabil J., Moukaddam, Hicham
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 909
container_issue 3
container_start_page 904
container_title Journal of magnetic resonance imaging
container_volume 54
creator El Homsi, Maria
Gharzeddine, Karem
Cuevas, Jordan
Arevalo‐Perez, Julio
Rebeiz, Karim
Khoury, Nabil J.
Moukaddam, Hicham
description Background Prior imaging studies characterizing lumbar arachnoiditis have been based on small sample numbers and have reported inconsistent results. Purpose To review the different imaging patterns of lumbosacral arachnoiditis, their significance, and clinical implications. Study type Retrospective. Population A total of 96 patients (43 women; average age 61.3 years) with imaging findings of arachnoiditis (postsurgical: N = 49; degenerative: N = 29; vertebral fracture: N = 6; epidural and subdural hemorrhage: N = 3, infectious: N= 1; other: N = 8) from January 2009 to April 2018. Field strength/Sequence Sagittal and axial T2‐weighted Turbo Spin Echo at 1.5 T and 3 T. Assessment Chart review was performed to assess the cause of arachnoiditis, and imaging was reviewed by two musculoskeletal and three neurology radiologists, blinded to the clinical data and to each other's imaging interpretation. Previous classification included a three‐group system based on the appearance of the nerve roots on T2‐weighted images. A fourth group was added in our review as “nonspecified” and was proposed for indeterminate imaging findings that did not fall into the classical groups. The presence/absence of synechiae/fibrous bands that distort the nerve roots and of spinal canal stenosis was also assessed. Statistical tests The kappa score was used to assess agreement between readers for both classification type and presence/absence of synechiae. Results Postsurgical (51%) and degenerative changes (30%) were the most common etiologies. About 7%–55% of arachnoiditis were classified as group 4. There was very poor classification agreement between readers (kappa score 0.051). There was also poor interreader agreement for determining the presence of synechiae (kappa 0.18) with, however, strong interreader agreement for the presence of synechia obtained between the most experienced readers (kappa 0.89). Data Conclusion This study demonstrated the lack of consensus and clarity in the classification system of lumbar arachnoiditis. The presence of synechia has high interreader agreement only among most experienced readers and promises to be a useful tool in assessing arachnoiditis. Evidence Level 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jmri.27583
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2494886957</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2559971113</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3573-83341de6f0b97aa4a5dff1606473bc0fee955544231c9129e5c08b0d306c7a4a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK1e_AES8CJi6n4ne5JSWq1UlKLnZbPZ1S1pUrOJ0n_v1lQPHjzNDDy8M_MAcIrgEEGIr5er2g1xwlKyB_qIYRxjlvL90ENGYpTCpAeOvF9CCIWg7BD0COGUCp70weRhMYumrsxd-eqjykajWum3snK5a5y_ihbmw3nXmHwYzXw0LpT3zjqtGleV0VMVpqwwN8fgwKrCm5NdHYCX6eR5fBfPH29n49E81oQlJE4JoSg33MJMJEpRxXJrEYecJiTT0BojGGOUYoK0QFgYpmGawZxArpOAkwG46HLXdfXeGt_IlfPaFIUqTdV6iamgacpFWDYA53_QZdXWZbhOYsaESBBCJFCXHaXr8EttrFzXbqXqjURQbuXKrVz5LTfAZ7vINluZ_Bf9sRkA1AGfrjCbf6LkfdDehX4BxY-CPA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2559971113</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>MRI Findings of Arachnoiditis, Revisited. Is Classification Possible?</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>El Homsi, Maria ; Gharzeddine, Karem ; Cuevas, Jordan ; Arevalo‐Perez, Julio ; Rebeiz, Karim ; Khoury, Nabil J. ; Moukaddam, Hicham</creator><creatorcontrib>El Homsi, Maria ; Gharzeddine, Karem ; Cuevas, Jordan ; Arevalo‐Perez, Julio ; Rebeiz, Karim ; Khoury, Nabil J. ; Moukaddam, Hicham</creatorcontrib><description>Background Prior imaging studies characterizing lumbar arachnoiditis have been based on small sample numbers and have reported inconsistent results. Purpose To review the different imaging patterns of lumbosacral arachnoiditis, their significance, and clinical implications. Study type Retrospective. Population A total of 96 patients (43 women; average age 61.3 years) with imaging findings of arachnoiditis (postsurgical: N = 49; degenerative: N = 29; vertebral fracture: N = 6; epidural and subdural hemorrhage: N = 3, infectious: N= 1; other: N = 8) from January 2009 to April 2018. Field strength/Sequence Sagittal and axial T2‐weighted Turbo Spin Echo at 1.5 T and 3 T. Assessment Chart review was performed to assess the cause of arachnoiditis, and imaging was reviewed by two musculoskeletal and three neurology radiologists, blinded to the clinical data and to each other's imaging interpretation. Previous classification included a three‐group system based on the appearance of the nerve roots on T2‐weighted images. A fourth group was added in our review as “nonspecified” and was proposed for indeterminate imaging findings that did not fall into the classical groups. The presence/absence of synechiae/fibrous bands that distort the nerve roots and of spinal canal stenosis was also assessed. Statistical tests The kappa score was used to assess agreement between readers for both classification type and presence/absence of synechiae. Results Postsurgical (51%) and degenerative changes (30%) were the most common etiologies. About 7%–55% of arachnoiditis were classified as group 4. There was very poor classification agreement between readers (kappa score 0.051). There was also poor interreader agreement for determining the presence of synechiae (kappa 0.18) with, however, strong interreader agreement for the presence of synechia obtained between the most experienced readers (kappa 0.89). Data Conclusion This study demonstrated the lack of consensus and clarity in the classification system of lumbar arachnoiditis. The presence of synechia has high interreader agreement only among most experienced readers and promises to be a useful tool in assessing arachnoiditis. Evidence Level 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-1807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-2586</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27583</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33644967</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Arachnoiditis ; Classification ; Etiology ; Field strength ; Hemorrhage ; lumbar ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medical imaging ; MRI ; Neurology ; Population studies ; Roots ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical tests ; Stenosis ; Vertebrae</subject><ispartof>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2021-09, Vol.54 (3), p.904-909</ispartof><rights>2021 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine</rights><rights>2021 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3573-83341de6f0b97aa4a5dff1606473bc0fee955544231c9129e5c08b0d306c7a4a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3573-83341de6f0b97aa4a5dff1606473bc0fee955544231c9129e5c08b0d306c7a4a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8483-3653 ; 0000-0002-6283-0558</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjmri.27583$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjmri.27583$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33644967$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>El Homsi, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gharzeddine, Karem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuevas, Jordan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arevalo‐Perez, Julio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rebeiz, Karim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khoury, Nabil J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moukaddam, Hicham</creatorcontrib><title>MRI Findings of Arachnoiditis, Revisited. Is Classification Possible?</title><title>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</title><addtitle>J Magn Reson Imaging</addtitle><description>Background Prior imaging studies characterizing lumbar arachnoiditis have been based on small sample numbers and have reported inconsistent results. Purpose To review the different imaging patterns of lumbosacral arachnoiditis, their significance, and clinical implications. Study type Retrospective. Population A total of 96 patients (43 women; average age 61.3 years) with imaging findings of arachnoiditis (postsurgical: N = 49; degenerative: N = 29; vertebral fracture: N = 6; epidural and subdural hemorrhage: N = 3, infectious: N= 1; other: N = 8) from January 2009 to April 2018. Field strength/Sequence Sagittal and axial T2‐weighted Turbo Spin Echo at 1.5 T and 3 T. Assessment Chart review was performed to assess the cause of arachnoiditis, and imaging was reviewed by two musculoskeletal and three neurology radiologists, blinded to the clinical data and to each other's imaging interpretation. Previous classification included a three‐group system based on the appearance of the nerve roots on T2‐weighted images. A fourth group was added in our review as “nonspecified” and was proposed for indeterminate imaging findings that did not fall into the classical groups. The presence/absence of synechiae/fibrous bands that distort the nerve roots and of spinal canal stenosis was also assessed. Statistical tests The kappa score was used to assess agreement between readers for both classification type and presence/absence of synechiae. Results Postsurgical (51%) and degenerative changes (30%) were the most common etiologies. About 7%–55% of arachnoiditis were classified as group 4. There was very poor classification agreement between readers (kappa score 0.051). There was also poor interreader agreement for determining the presence of synechiae (kappa 0.18) with, however, strong interreader agreement for the presence of synechia obtained between the most experienced readers (kappa 0.89). Data Conclusion This study demonstrated the lack of consensus and clarity in the classification system of lumbar arachnoiditis. The presence of synechia has high interreader agreement only among most experienced readers and promises to be a useful tool in assessing arachnoiditis. Evidence Level 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Arachnoiditis</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Etiology</subject><subject>Field strength</subject><subject>Hemorrhage</subject><subject>lumbar</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Population studies</subject><subject>Roots</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Stenosis</subject><subject>Vertebrae</subject><issn>1053-1807</issn><issn>1522-2586</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK1e_AES8CJi6n4ne5JSWq1UlKLnZbPZ1S1pUrOJ0n_v1lQPHjzNDDy8M_MAcIrgEEGIr5er2g1xwlKyB_qIYRxjlvL90ENGYpTCpAeOvF9CCIWg7BD0COGUCp70weRhMYumrsxd-eqjykajWum3snK5a5y_ihbmw3nXmHwYzXw0LpT3zjqtGleV0VMVpqwwN8fgwKrCm5NdHYCX6eR5fBfPH29n49E81oQlJE4JoSg33MJMJEpRxXJrEYecJiTT0BojGGOUYoK0QFgYpmGawZxArpOAkwG46HLXdfXeGt_IlfPaFIUqTdV6iamgacpFWDYA53_QZdXWZbhOYsaESBBCJFCXHaXr8EttrFzXbqXqjURQbuXKrVz5LTfAZ7vINluZ_Bf9sRkA1AGfrjCbf6LkfdDehX4BxY-CPA</recordid><startdate>202109</startdate><enddate>202109</enddate><creator>El Homsi, Maria</creator><creator>Gharzeddine, Karem</creator><creator>Cuevas, Jordan</creator><creator>Arevalo‐Perez, Julio</creator><creator>Rebeiz, Karim</creator><creator>Khoury, Nabil J.</creator><creator>Moukaddam, Hicham</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8483-3653</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6283-0558</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202109</creationdate><title>MRI Findings of Arachnoiditis, Revisited. Is Classification Possible?</title><author>El Homsi, Maria ; Gharzeddine, Karem ; Cuevas, Jordan ; Arevalo‐Perez, Julio ; Rebeiz, Karim ; Khoury, Nabil J. ; Moukaddam, Hicham</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3573-83341de6f0b97aa4a5dff1606473bc0fee955544231c9129e5c08b0d306c7a4a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Arachnoiditis</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Etiology</topic><topic>Field strength</topic><topic>Hemorrhage</topic><topic>lumbar</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Population studies</topic><topic>Roots</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Stenosis</topic><topic>Vertebrae</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>El Homsi, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gharzeddine, Karem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuevas, Jordan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arevalo‐Perez, Julio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rebeiz, Karim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khoury, Nabil J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moukaddam, Hicham</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>El Homsi, Maria</au><au>Gharzeddine, Karem</au><au>Cuevas, Jordan</au><au>Arevalo‐Perez, Julio</au><au>Rebeiz, Karim</au><au>Khoury, Nabil J.</au><au>Moukaddam, Hicham</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>MRI Findings of Arachnoiditis, Revisited. Is Classification Possible?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle><addtitle>J Magn Reson Imaging</addtitle><date>2021-09</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>904</spage><epage>909</epage><pages>904-909</pages><issn>1053-1807</issn><eissn>1522-2586</eissn><abstract>Background Prior imaging studies characterizing lumbar arachnoiditis have been based on small sample numbers and have reported inconsistent results. Purpose To review the different imaging patterns of lumbosacral arachnoiditis, their significance, and clinical implications. Study type Retrospective. Population A total of 96 patients (43 women; average age 61.3 years) with imaging findings of arachnoiditis (postsurgical: N = 49; degenerative: N = 29; vertebral fracture: N = 6; epidural and subdural hemorrhage: N = 3, infectious: N= 1; other: N = 8) from January 2009 to April 2018. Field strength/Sequence Sagittal and axial T2‐weighted Turbo Spin Echo at 1.5 T and 3 T. Assessment Chart review was performed to assess the cause of arachnoiditis, and imaging was reviewed by two musculoskeletal and three neurology radiologists, blinded to the clinical data and to each other's imaging interpretation. Previous classification included a three‐group system based on the appearance of the nerve roots on T2‐weighted images. A fourth group was added in our review as “nonspecified” and was proposed for indeterminate imaging findings that did not fall into the classical groups. The presence/absence of synechiae/fibrous bands that distort the nerve roots and of spinal canal stenosis was also assessed. Statistical tests The kappa score was used to assess agreement between readers for both classification type and presence/absence of synechiae. Results Postsurgical (51%) and degenerative changes (30%) were the most common etiologies. About 7%–55% of arachnoiditis were classified as group 4. There was very poor classification agreement between readers (kappa score 0.051). There was also poor interreader agreement for determining the presence of synechiae (kappa 0.18) with, however, strong interreader agreement for the presence of synechia obtained between the most experienced readers (kappa 0.89). Data Conclusion This study demonstrated the lack of consensus and clarity in the classification system of lumbar arachnoiditis. The presence of synechia has high interreader agreement only among most experienced readers and promises to be a useful tool in assessing arachnoiditis. Evidence Level 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>33644967</pmid><doi>10.1002/jmri.27583</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8483-3653</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6283-0558</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-1807
ispartof Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2021-09, Vol.54 (3), p.904-909
issn 1053-1807
1522-2586
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2494886957
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Agreements
Arachnoiditis
Classification
Etiology
Field strength
Hemorrhage
lumbar
Magnetic resonance imaging
Medical imaging
MRI
Neurology
Population studies
Roots
Statistical analysis
Statistical tests
Stenosis
Vertebrae
title MRI Findings of Arachnoiditis, Revisited. Is Classification Possible?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T14%3A25%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MRI%20Findings%20of%20Arachnoiditis,%20Revisited.%20Is%20Classification%20Possible?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.au=El%20Homsi,%20Maria&rft.date=2021-09&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=904&rft.epage=909&rft.pages=904-909&rft.issn=1053-1807&rft.eissn=1522-2586&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jmri.27583&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2559971113%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2559971113&rft_id=info:pmid/33644967&rfr_iscdi=true