Evaluation of lumbar disc and spine morphology: long-term repeatability and comparison of methods

Establishing the long-term repeatability of quantitative measures of lumbar intervertebral disc and spinal morphology is important for planning interventional studies. We aimed to examine this issue and to determine to what extent a smaller number of measurements per disc or vertebral level could be...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Physiological measurement 2012-08, Vol.33 (8), p.1313-1321
Hauptverfasser: Belavý, D L, Armbrecht, G, Felsenberg, D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1321
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1313
container_title Physiological measurement
container_volume 33
creator Belavý, D L
Armbrecht, G
Felsenberg, D
description Establishing the long-term repeatability of quantitative measures of lumbar intervertebral disc and spinal morphology is important for planning interventional studies. We aimed to examine this issue and to determine to what extent a smaller number of measurements per disc or vertebral level could be used to save operator time without compromising measurement precision. Twenty-one healthy male subjects were scanned at baseline and 1.5 years later. On sagittal MR-scans intervertebral disc cross-sectional area, anterior disc height, posterior disc height, intervertebral angle and intervertebral length were measured. The repeatability of the average value from all sagittal images or from 1, 3, 5 or 7 images centred at the spinous process was evaluated. Bland-Altman analysis showed all measurements to be repeatable between testing days. Intervertebral length was the most precise measurement (coefficients of variation [CVs] between 1.2% and 1.5%), followed by disc cross-sectional area (CVs between 2.9% and 3.6%). Variance component analysis showed that using 7 images, but not 1, 3 or 5 images, resulted in a similar level of measurement error as when measurements from all images were included.
doi_str_mv 10.1088/0967-3334/33/8/1313
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_22813922</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1028020962</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c4e25f903b1c2674c8bf983f2b947918fa294666ae71223f0c9a9347d01b01b23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwBUgoSzYhfqSJzQ5V5SFVYgNry3Gc1pUdBztB6t_jkNIl0mhmc-aO5gBwi-ADgpRmkBVlSgjJM0IymiGCyBmYI1KgtFiW7BzMT8QMXIWwhxAhipeXYIYxRYRhPAdi_S3MIHrt2sQ1iRlsJXxS6yAT0dZJ6HSrEut8t3PGbQ-PiXHtNu2Vt4lXnRK9qLTR_eGXls52wuswZVnV71wdrsFFI0xQN8e5AJ_P64_Va7p5f3lbPW1SSfJln8pc4WXDIKmQxEWZS1o1jJIGVywvGaKNwCwvikKoEmFMGiiZYCQva4iqWJgswP2U23n3NajQcxu_UMaIVrkhcAQxhTgqGVEyodK7ELxqeOe1Ff4QIT665aM5PpqLjVM-uo1bd8cDQ2VVfdr5kxmBbAK06_jeDb6N__4b-QOM1YKx</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1028020962</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of lumbar disc and spine morphology: long-term repeatability and comparison of methods</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>IOP Publishing Journals</source><source>Institute of Physics (IOP) Journals - HEAL-Link</source><creator>Belavý, D L ; Armbrecht, G ; Felsenberg, D</creator><creatorcontrib>Belavý, D L ; Armbrecht, G ; Felsenberg, D</creatorcontrib><description>Establishing the long-term repeatability of quantitative measures of lumbar intervertebral disc and spinal morphology is important for planning interventional studies. We aimed to examine this issue and to determine to what extent a smaller number of measurements per disc or vertebral level could be used to save operator time without compromising measurement precision. Twenty-one healthy male subjects were scanned at baseline and 1.5 years later. On sagittal MR-scans intervertebral disc cross-sectional area, anterior disc height, posterior disc height, intervertebral angle and intervertebral length were measured. The repeatability of the average value from all sagittal images or from 1, 3, 5 or 7 images centred at the spinous process was evaluated. Bland-Altman analysis showed all measurements to be repeatable between testing days. Intervertebral length was the most precise measurement (coefficients of variation [CVs] between 1.2% and 1.5%), followed by disc cross-sectional area (CVs between 2.9% and 3.6%). Variance component analysis showed that using 7 images, but not 1, 3 or 5 images, resulted in a similar level of measurement error as when measurements from all images were included.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0967-3334</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1361-6579</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/33/8/1313</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22813922</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PMEAE3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>Adult ; Humans ; intervertebral disc ; Intervertebral Disc - anatomy &amp; histology ; Longitudinal Studies ; low back pain ; Lumbar Vertebrae - anatomy &amp; histology ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Male ; reliability ; reproducibility ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sample Size ; spinal surgery ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Physiological measurement, 2012-08, Vol.33 (8), p.1313-1321</ispartof><rights>2012 IOP Publishing Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c4e25f903b1c2674c8bf983f2b947918fa294666ae71223f0c9a9347d01b01b23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c4e25f903b1c2674c8bf983f2b947918fa294666ae71223f0c9a9347d01b01b23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0967-3334/33/8/1313/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Giop$$H</linktopdf><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,53821,53868</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22813922$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Belavý, D L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armbrecht, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felsenberg, D</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of lumbar disc and spine morphology: long-term repeatability and comparison of methods</title><title>Physiological measurement</title><addtitle>PM</addtitle><addtitle>Physiol. Meas</addtitle><description>Establishing the long-term repeatability of quantitative measures of lumbar intervertebral disc and spinal morphology is important for planning interventional studies. We aimed to examine this issue and to determine to what extent a smaller number of measurements per disc or vertebral level could be used to save operator time without compromising measurement precision. Twenty-one healthy male subjects were scanned at baseline and 1.5 years later. On sagittal MR-scans intervertebral disc cross-sectional area, anterior disc height, posterior disc height, intervertebral angle and intervertebral length were measured. The repeatability of the average value from all sagittal images or from 1, 3, 5 or 7 images centred at the spinous process was evaluated. Bland-Altman analysis showed all measurements to be repeatable between testing days. Intervertebral length was the most precise measurement (coefficients of variation [CVs] between 1.2% and 1.5%), followed by disc cross-sectional area (CVs between 2.9% and 3.6%). Variance component analysis showed that using 7 images, but not 1, 3 or 5 images, resulted in a similar level of measurement error as when measurements from all images were included.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>intervertebral disc</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>low back pain</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>reliability</subject><subject>reproducibility</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><subject>spinal surgery</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0967-3334</issn><issn>1361-6579</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwBUgoSzYhfqSJzQ5V5SFVYgNry3Gc1pUdBztB6t_jkNIl0mhmc-aO5gBwi-ADgpRmkBVlSgjJM0IymiGCyBmYI1KgtFiW7BzMT8QMXIWwhxAhipeXYIYxRYRhPAdi_S3MIHrt2sQ1iRlsJXxS6yAT0dZJ6HSrEut8t3PGbQ-PiXHtNu2Vt4lXnRK9qLTR_eGXls52wuswZVnV71wdrsFFI0xQN8e5AJ_P64_Va7p5f3lbPW1SSfJln8pc4WXDIKmQxEWZS1o1jJIGVywvGaKNwCwvikKoEmFMGiiZYCQva4iqWJgswP2U23n3NajQcxu_UMaIVrkhcAQxhTgqGVEyodK7ELxqeOe1Ff4QIT665aM5PpqLjVM-uo1bd8cDQ2VVfdr5kxmBbAK06_jeDb6N__4b-QOM1YKx</recordid><startdate>20120801</startdate><enddate>20120801</enddate><creator>Belavý, D L</creator><creator>Armbrecht, G</creator><creator>Felsenberg, D</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120801</creationdate><title>Evaluation of lumbar disc and spine morphology: long-term repeatability and comparison of methods</title><author>Belavý, D L ; Armbrecht, G ; Felsenberg, D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c4e25f903b1c2674c8bf983f2b947918fa294666ae71223f0c9a9347d01b01b23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>intervertebral disc</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>low back pain</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>reliability</topic><topic>reproducibility</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><topic>spinal surgery</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Belavý, D L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armbrecht, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felsenberg, D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Physiological measurement</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Belavý, D L</au><au>Armbrecht, G</au><au>Felsenberg, D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of lumbar disc and spine morphology: long-term repeatability and comparison of methods</atitle><jtitle>Physiological measurement</jtitle><stitle>PM</stitle><addtitle>Physiol. Meas</addtitle><date>2012-08-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1313</spage><epage>1321</epage><pages>1313-1321</pages><issn>0967-3334</issn><eissn>1361-6579</eissn><coden>PMEAE3</coden><abstract>Establishing the long-term repeatability of quantitative measures of lumbar intervertebral disc and spinal morphology is important for planning interventional studies. We aimed to examine this issue and to determine to what extent a smaller number of measurements per disc or vertebral level could be used to save operator time without compromising measurement precision. Twenty-one healthy male subjects were scanned at baseline and 1.5 years later. On sagittal MR-scans intervertebral disc cross-sectional area, anterior disc height, posterior disc height, intervertebral angle and intervertebral length were measured. The repeatability of the average value from all sagittal images or from 1, 3, 5 or 7 images centred at the spinous process was evaluated. Bland-Altman analysis showed all measurements to be repeatable between testing days. Intervertebral length was the most precise measurement (coefficients of variation [CVs] between 1.2% and 1.5%), followed by disc cross-sectional area (CVs between 2.9% and 3.6%). Variance component analysis showed that using 7 images, but not 1, 3 or 5 images, resulted in a similar level of measurement error as when measurements from all images were included.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><pmid>22813922</pmid><doi>10.1088/0967-3334/33/8/1313</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0967-3334
ispartof Physiological measurement, 2012-08, Vol.33 (8), p.1313-1321
issn 0967-3334
1361-6579
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_22813922
source MEDLINE; IOP Publishing Journals; Institute of Physics (IOP) Journals - HEAL-Link
subjects Adult
Humans
intervertebral disc
Intervertebral Disc - anatomy & histology
Longitudinal Studies
low back pain
Lumbar Vertebrae - anatomy & histology
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Male
reliability
reproducibility
Reproducibility of Results
Sample Size
spinal surgery
Time Factors
title Evaluation of lumbar disc and spine morphology: long-term repeatability and comparison of methods
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T20%3A01%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20lumbar%20disc%20and%20spine%20morphology:%20long-term%20repeatability%20and%20comparison%20of%20methods&rft.jtitle=Physiological%20measurement&rft.au=Belav%C3%BD,%20D%20L&rft.date=2012-08-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1313&rft.epage=1321&rft.pages=1313-1321&rft.issn=0967-3334&rft.eissn=1361-6579&rft.coden=PMEAE3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/0967-3334/33/8/1313&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1028020962%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1028020962&rft_id=info:pmid/22813922&rfr_iscdi=true