Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42766025›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Interpreting acute postoperative MRI after lumbar spinal fusion: a practical framework for clinical decision-making.

Shaani Singhal, Shahrukh Khan, Nathan Anderson, Keat Ooi, Frank Malara, Gerald Quan, Andrew Hardidge

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shaani SinghalDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Shahrukh KhanHospital Medical Officer, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia. kshahrukh1231@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4585-5314
Nathan AndersonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Keat OoiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Frank MalaraDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Gerald QuanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Andrew HardidgeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is frequently performed in the acute postoperative period following lumbar spinal fusion in patients with neurological deterioration or unexpected pain. However, interpretation is often challenging due to expected postoperative changes and metal artifact, which may obscure or mimic clinically significant pathology. In the absence of a structured interpretive approach, this can lead to diagnostic uncertainty and potentially unnecessary reoperation.

methodsA narrative review of the literature was performed focusing on acute postoperative MRI findings following lumbar spinal fusion, mechanisms of metal artifact, and contemporary artifact reduction techniques. Evidence was synthesised across four thematic domains to develop a practical, clinically applicable framework for MRI interpretation.

resultsExpected postoperative MRI findings include soft tissue enhancement, vertebral body or endplate enhancement, instrumentation-related artifact, and epidural fluid collections, which are frequently observed and often clinically benign. In contrast, pathological findings include significant reduction in dural sac cross-sectional area, loss of surrounding cerebrospinal fluid signal, and rim-enhancing epidural or paraspinal collections suggestive of infection. A diagnostic grey zone persists in the acute setting, where supine imaging may exaggerate apparent compression and the natural history of dural sac re-expansion and epidural collections remains poorly defined. Metal artifact further limits interpretation, although techniques such as SEMAC, MAVRIC, and VAT can significantly improve image quality.

conclusionInterpretation of acute postoperative MRI following lumbar spinal fusion requires a structured, clinically integrated approach. This review proposes a practical framework to distinguish expected findings from pathological features while recognizing areas of uncertainty. Appropriate use of artifact-reduction techniques and close collaboration between surgical and radiological teams are essential to improve diagnostic accuracy and guide decision-making.

Indexed as

Cerebrospinal fluid leakClinical decision-makingEpidural hematomaLumbar vertebraeMagnetic resonance imagingMetal artifact reductionPostoperative complicationsSpinal fusionSpondylodiscitis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.