Comparison of predictive performance for cage subsidence between CT-based Hounsfield units and MRI-based vertebral bone quality score following oblique lumbar interbody fusion
Objective To compare the predictive performance between CT-based Hounsfield units (HU) and MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) for cage subsidence (CS) following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral single-rod screw fixation (OLIF-AF). Methods A retrospective study was perf...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2023-12, Vol.33 (12), p.8637-8644 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 8644 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 8637 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | Pu, Xingxiao Wang, Xiandi Ran, Liyu Xie, Tianhang Li, Zhuhai Yang, Zhiqiang Lin, Run Zeng, Jiancheng |
| description | Objective
To compare the predictive performance between CT-based Hounsfield units (HU) and MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) for cage subsidence (CS) following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral single-rod screw fixation (OLIF-AF).
Methods
A retrospective study was performed on consecutive patients who underwent OLIF-AF at our institution from 2018 to 2020. CS was determined by CT according to the change in the midpoint intervertebral space height. The VBQ score and HU value were measured from preoperative MRI and CT, respectively. Then, we evaluated the predictive performance of those two parameters by comparing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
Results
The mean global and segmental VBQ scores were significantly higher in the CS group, and the mean global and segmental HU values were significantly lower in the CS group. The area under the curve (AUC) of CS prediction was higher in the operative segments’ VBQ score and HU value than the measurement in the global lumbar spine. Finally, the combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value demonstrated the highest AUC.
Conclusion
Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can achieve accurate CS prediction. Moreover, the combination of those two measurements indicated the best predictive performance.
Clinical relevance statement
Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can be used for cage subsidence prediction, in order to take preventive measures early enough.
Key Points
•
Osteoporosis is a risk factor for CS, both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value are important predictors during vertebral bone quality evaluation.
•
The VBQ score and HU value measured in the operative segments are better predictors of CS than the measurement in the global lumbar spine.
•
Combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value achieved the best predictive performance for CS. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-023-09929-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2839247025</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2839247025</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c749523e5f7cb7d698c9c867e6bc37711a5a13358342360a623ee0cbbc7bff103</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctu1TAQhi0Eohd4ARbIEhs2AV-SOF6iI6CVipBQWVu2Mzly5dipHbc9T8Ur4tNzuIgFqxnNfPPPaH6EXlHyjhIi3mdCOCcNYbwhUjLZPDxBp7TlrKFkaJ_-lZ-gs5xvCCGStuI5OuGi7dlA5Sn6sYnzopPLMeA44SXB6Ozq7gAvkKaYZh0s4Jpgq7eAczHZjbCvGVjvAQLeXDdGZxjxRSwhTw78iEtwa8Y6jPjLt8tj-w7SCiZpj00MgG-L9m7d4Wxj2i_wPt67sMXReHdbAPsyG52wCyskE8cdnkp2MbxAzybtM7w8xnP0_dPH681Fc_X18-Xmw1VjuejWxopWdoxDNwlrxNjLwUo79AJ6UwFBqe405bwbeMt4T3RfWSDWGCvMNFHCz9Hbg-6SYj0nr2p22YL3OkAsWbGBS9YKwrqKvvkHvYklhXpdpSQb6tu5qBQ7UDbFnBNMaklu1mmnKFF7O9XBTlXtVI92qoc69PooXcwM4--RX_5VgB-AXFthC-nP7v_I_gRuz67m</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2892800037</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of predictive performance for cage subsidence between CT-based Hounsfield units and MRI-based vertebral bone quality score following oblique lumbar interbody fusion</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Pu, Xingxiao ; Wang, Xiandi ; Ran, Liyu ; Xie, Tianhang ; Li, Zhuhai ; Yang, Zhiqiang ; Lin, Run ; Zeng, Jiancheng</creator><creatorcontrib>Pu, Xingxiao ; Wang, Xiandi ; Ran, Liyu ; Xie, Tianhang ; Li, Zhuhai ; Yang, Zhiqiang ; Lin, Run ; Zeng, Jiancheng</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To compare the predictive performance between CT-based Hounsfield units (HU) and MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) for cage subsidence (CS) following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral single-rod screw fixation (OLIF-AF).
Methods
A retrospective study was performed on consecutive patients who underwent OLIF-AF at our institution from 2018 to 2020. CS was determined by CT according to the change in the midpoint intervertebral space height. The VBQ score and HU value were measured from preoperative MRI and CT, respectively. Then, we evaluated the predictive performance of those two parameters by comparing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
Results
The mean global and segmental VBQ scores were significantly higher in the CS group, and the mean global and segmental HU values were significantly lower in the CS group. The area under the curve (AUC) of CS prediction was higher in the operative segments’ VBQ score and HU value than the measurement in the global lumbar spine. Finally, the combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value demonstrated the highest AUC.
Conclusion
Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can achieve accurate CS prediction. Moreover, the combination of those two measurements indicated the best predictive performance.
Clinical relevance statement
Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can be used for cage subsidence prediction, in order to take preventive measures early enough.
Key Points
•
Osteoporosis is a risk factor for CS, both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value are important predictors during vertebral bone quality evaluation.
•
The VBQ score and HU value measured in the operative segments are better predictors of CS than the measurement in the global lumbar spine.
•
Combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value achieved the best predictive performance for CS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09929-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37462819</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Back surgery ; Body mass index ; Bone density ; Bone implants ; Cages ; Cerebrospinal fluid ; Communications systems ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Hospitals ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Musculoskeletal ; Neuroradiology ; Orthopedics ; Osteoporosis ; Performance evaluation ; Performance prediction ; Predictions ; Quality assessment ; Radiology ; Risk factors ; Segments ; Spine ; Spine (lumbar) ; Subsidence ; Tomography ; Trauma ; Ultrasound ; Vertebrae</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2023-12, Vol.33 (12), p.8637-8644</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c749523e5f7cb7d698c9c867e6bc37711a5a13358342360a623ee0cbbc7bff103</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c749523e5f7cb7d698c9c867e6bc37711a5a13358342360a623ee0cbbc7bff103</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-023-09929-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-023-09929-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37462819$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pu, Xingxiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiandi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ran, Liyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Tianhang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Zhuhai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Zhiqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Run</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeng, Jiancheng</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of predictive performance for cage subsidence between CT-based Hounsfield units and MRI-based vertebral bone quality score following oblique lumbar interbody fusion</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective
To compare the predictive performance between CT-based Hounsfield units (HU) and MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) for cage subsidence (CS) following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral single-rod screw fixation (OLIF-AF).
Methods
A retrospective study was performed on consecutive patients who underwent OLIF-AF at our institution from 2018 to 2020. CS was determined by CT according to the change in the midpoint intervertebral space height. The VBQ score and HU value were measured from preoperative MRI and CT, respectively. Then, we evaluated the predictive performance of those two parameters by comparing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
Results
The mean global and segmental VBQ scores were significantly higher in the CS group, and the mean global and segmental HU values were significantly lower in the CS group. The area under the curve (AUC) of CS prediction was higher in the operative segments’ VBQ score and HU value than the measurement in the global lumbar spine. Finally, the combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value demonstrated the highest AUC.
Conclusion
Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can achieve accurate CS prediction. Moreover, the combination of those two measurements indicated the best predictive performance.
Clinical relevance statement
Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can be used for cage subsidence prediction, in order to take preventive measures early enough.
Key Points
•
Osteoporosis is a risk factor for CS, both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value are important predictors during vertebral bone quality evaluation.
•
The VBQ score and HU value measured in the operative segments are better predictors of CS than the measurement in the global lumbar spine.
•
Combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value achieved the best predictive performance for CS.</description><subject>Back surgery</subject><subject>Body mass index</subject><subject>Bone density</subject><subject>Bone implants</subject><subject>Cages</subject><subject>Cerebrospinal fluid</subject><subject>Communications systems</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Musculoskeletal</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Osteoporosis</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Performance prediction</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Segments</subject><subject>Spine</subject><subject>Spine (lumbar)</subject><subject>Subsidence</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Vertebrae</subject><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctu1TAQhi0Eohd4ARbIEhs2AV-SOF6iI6CVipBQWVu2Mzly5dipHbc9T8Ur4tNzuIgFqxnNfPPPaH6EXlHyjhIi3mdCOCcNYbwhUjLZPDxBp7TlrKFkaJ_-lZ-gs5xvCCGStuI5OuGi7dlA5Sn6sYnzopPLMeA44SXB6Ozq7gAvkKaYZh0s4Jpgq7eAczHZjbCvGVjvAQLeXDdGZxjxRSwhTw78iEtwa8Y6jPjLt8tj-w7SCiZpj00MgG-L9m7d4Wxj2i_wPt67sMXReHdbAPsyG52wCyskE8cdnkp2MbxAzybtM7w8xnP0_dPH681Fc_X18-Xmw1VjuejWxopWdoxDNwlrxNjLwUo79AJ6UwFBqe405bwbeMt4T3RfWSDWGCvMNFHCz9Hbg-6SYj0nr2p22YL3OkAsWbGBS9YKwrqKvvkHvYklhXpdpSQb6tu5qBQ7UDbFnBNMaklu1mmnKFF7O9XBTlXtVI92qoc69PooXcwM4--RX_5VgB-AXFthC-nP7v_I_gRuz67m</recordid><startdate>20231201</startdate><enddate>20231201</enddate><creator>Pu, Xingxiao</creator><creator>Wang, Xiandi</creator><creator>Ran, Liyu</creator><creator>Xie, Tianhang</creator><creator>Li, Zhuhai</creator><creator>Yang, Zhiqiang</creator><creator>Lin, Run</creator><creator>Zeng, Jiancheng</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231201</creationdate><title>Comparison of predictive performance for cage subsidence between CT-based Hounsfield units and MRI-based vertebral bone quality score following oblique lumbar interbody fusion</title><author>Pu, Xingxiao ; Wang, Xiandi ; Ran, Liyu ; Xie, Tianhang ; Li, Zhuhai ; Yang, Zhiqiang ; Lin, Run ; Zeng, Jiancheng</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c749523e5f7cb7d698c9c867e6bc37711a5a13358342360a623ee0cbbc7bff103</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Back surgery</topic><topic>Body mass index</topic><topic>Bone density</topic><topic>Bone implants</topic><topic>Cages</topic><topic>Cerebrospinal fluid</topic><topic>Communications systems</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Musculoskeletal</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Osteoporosis</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Performance prediction</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Segments</topic><topic>Spine</topic><topic>Spine (lumbar)</topic><topic>Subsidence</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Vertebrae</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pu, Xingxiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiandi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ran, Liyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Tianhang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Zhuhai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Zhiqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Run</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeng, Jiancheng</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pu, Xingxiao</au><au>Wang, Xiandi</au><au>Ran, Liyu</au><au>Xie, Tianhang</au><au>Li, Zhuhai</au><au>Yang, Zhiqiang</au><au>Lin, Run</au><au>Zeng, Jiancheng</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of predictive performance for cage subsidence between CT-based Hounsfield units and MRI-based vertebral bone quality score following oblique lumbar interbody fusion</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2023-12-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>8637</spage><epage>8644</epage><pages>8637-8644</pages><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objective
To compare the predictive performance between CT-based Hounsfield units (HU) and MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) for cage subsidence (CS) following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral single-rod screw fixation (OLIF-AF).
Methods
A retrospective study was performed on consecutive patients who underwent OLIF-AF at our institution from 2018 to 2020. CS was determined by CT according to the change in the midpoint intervertebral space height. The VBQ score and HU value were measured from preoperative MRI and CT, respectively. Then, we evaluated the predictive performance of those two parameters by comparing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
Results
The mean global and segmental VBQ scores were significantly higher in the CS group, and the mean global and segmental HU values were significantly lower in the CS group. The area under the curve (AUC) of CS prediction was higher in the operative segments’ VBQ score and HU value than the measurement in the global lumbar spine. Finally, the combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value demonstrated the highest AUC.
Conclusion
Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can achieve accurate CS prediction. Moreover, the combination of those two measurements indicated the best predictive performance.
Clinical relevance statement
Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can be used for cage subsidence prediction, in order to take preventive measures early enough.
Key Points
•
Osteoporosis is a risk factor for CS, both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value are important predictors during vertebral bone quality evaluation.
•
The VBQ score and HU value measured in the operative segments are better predictors of CS than the measurement in the global lumbar spine.
•
Combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value achieved the best predictive performance for CS.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>37462819</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-023-09929-x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1432-1084 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2023-12, Vol.33 (12), p.8637-8644 |
| issn | 1432-1084 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2839247025 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Back surgery Body mass index Bone density Bone implants Cages Cerebrospinal fluid Communications systems Diagnostic Radiology Hospitals Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Magnetic resonance imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Musculoskeletal Neuroradiology Orthopedics Osteoporosis Performance evaluation Performance prediction Predictions Quality assessment Radiology Risk factors Segments Spine Spine (lumbar) Subsidence Tomography Trauma Ultrasound Vertebrae |
| title | Comparison of predictive performance for cage subsidence between CT-based Hounsfield units and MRI-based vertebral bone quality score following oblique lumbar interbody fusion |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T21%3A11%3A49IST&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=Comparison%20of%20predictive%20performance%20for%20cage%20subsidence%20between%20CT-based%20Hounsfield%20units%20and%20MRI-based%20vertebral%20bone%20quality%20score%20following%20oblique%20lumbar%20interbody%20fusion&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Pu,%20Xingxiao&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=8637&rft.epage=8644&rft.pages=8637-8644&rft.issn=1432-1084&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-023-09929-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2839247025%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=2892800037&rft_id=info:pmid/37462819&rfr_iscdi=true |