Go Back   ISPINE.ORG Forum > Main forums > Abstracts and Articles
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Abstracts and Articles Discuss Accuracy and validity of "Routine" X-rays in est. lumbar disc arthroplasty placement in the Main forums forums; From: PubMed. Spine. 2007 Nov 1;32(23):E661-6. The accuracy and validity of "Routine" X-rays ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 06:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 196
Default Accuracy and validity of "Routine" X-rays in est. lumbar disc arthroplasty placement

From: PubMed. Spine. 2007 Nov 1;32(23):E661-6.

The accuracy and validity of "Routine" X-rays in estimating lumbar disc arthroplasty placement
Marshman LA, Trewhella M, Friesem T, Rampersaud YR, Le Huec JC, Krishna M

Abstract
Study Design: Original study.
Objective: To compare the accuracy of radiograph (XR) estimates of lumbar total disc arthroplasty placement with high-resolution computed tomography (CT).
Summary of Background Data: Most lumbar disc arthroplasties are inserted and subsequently analyzed using anteroposterior and lateral XR: XR estimates are often correlated with clinical outcomes. No study has hitherto assessed the relative accuracy of XR estimates with CT.
Methods: Patients (N = 36) had recently undergone uncomplicated lumbar total disc arthroplasty for unresponsive discogenic back pain. Interpedicular midline malplacement and vertebral body penetration (VBP) were estimated after surgery, by "blinded" independent review, using computer software on both nonrotated XR and high-resolution CT at the same clinic attendance.
Results: Results were obtained in N = 36 patients. No significant differences were found between XR and CT in the mean +/- standard error estimation of either midline malplacement (1.7 +/- 0.2 mm vs. 1.8 +/- 0.2 mm, P = 0.86) or VBP (1.5 +/- 0.3 mm vs. 1.6 +/- 0.3 mm, P = 0.79). However, the correlation between XR and CT for midline malplacement appeared strong (r = 0.72, P < 0.001), whereas the correlation between XR and CT for VBP was poor (r = 0.23 P > 0.10). The standard deviation of XR-CT differences for VBP (2.2 mm) was almost twice that for midline malplacement (1.2 mm). XR-CT differences exceeded the 95% limit of agreement in 6% of midline placement estimates, and in 8% for VBP.
Conclusion: Nonrotated XR permitted an accurate and valid estimate of midline malplacement relative to CT in most cases. However, the correlation was biased toward XR underestimation of CT-derived malplacement, and highly significant XR-CT differences occurred in 6% of estimates: early postoperative CT is therefore recommended to enhance the estimation of midline placement. XR-CT agreement for VBP was poor: CT is therefore indicated in all cases for this parameter. This is the first study to compare the accuracy of XR in estimating lumbar total disc arthroplasty placement with CT.

Keywords: rays; disc arthroplasty; ARTIFICIAL DISC; IMAGE GUIDANCE; REPLACEMENT; FUSION
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.