ArticleAsian spine journal2021
Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?
Article in Asian spine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Review Update 2022.Asian spine journal · 2022Article
- Neuroforamen stenosis remains a challenge in conventional computed tomography and new dual-energy techniques.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective radiological comparative design. PURPOSE: To investigate whether conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could substitute three-dimensional (3D)-MRI for the calculation of the foraminal stenotic ratio (FSR) and clarification of which patients can be assessed more accurately using 3D-MRI. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Previous studies have indicated that 3D-MRI is useful for diagnosing lumbar foraminal stenosis. The FSR obtained using 3D-MRI, described as the ratio of stenosis length, characterized by perineural fat obliteration, to the length of the entire foramen, could indicate the stenosis severity; however, this method is time-consuming and expensive. The FSR also can be calculated using conventional MRI.
methodsWe investigated 154 foramina at L5-S1 in 77 patients. All the patients had degenerative lumbar disorders and had undergone both conventional MRI and 3D-MRI during the same visit. Differences between the FSRs calculated from conventional and 3D-MRI reconstructions and any correlations with the plain radiography findings were assessed.
resultsIn foramina that had a FSR of <50% on conventional MRI, the difference between the FSR obtained using conventional MRI and 3D-MRI was 5.1%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.777. For foramina with a FSR ≥50% on conventional MRI, the difference was 20.2%, with a correlation coefficient of 0.54. FSR obtained using 3D-MRI was significantly greater in patients who required surgery than in those who were successfully treated with conservative methods (88% and 42%, respectively). Segments with spondylolisthesis or lateral wedging showed higher FSRs than those without these conditions on both types of MRI.
conclusionsFSRs <50% obtained using conventional MRI were sufficiently reliable; however, the results were inaccurate for FSRs ≥50%. Patients with high FSRs on 3D-MRI were more likely to require surgical treatment. Therefore, 3D-MRI is recommended in patients with suspected stenosis detected using conventional MRI or plain radiographs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.