Clinical Validity of Two Different Grading Systems for Lumbar Central Canal Stenosis: Schizas and Lee Classification Systems

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2020 May 28

PMID 32459814

Citations 8

Authors

Yeon-Jee Ko

Eugene Lee

Joon Woo Lee

Chi Young Park

Jungheum Cho

Yusuhn Kang

Joong Mo Ahn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the learnability of two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis based on inter-observer agreement and test-retest reliability of doctors with no prior knowledge of the two systems.

Materials And Methods: Two clinical fellows, one novice radiology resident, one neurosurgeon, and one orthopedic surgeon, who were unaware of the two qualitative MRI grading systems prior to this study, acquainted themselves with the teaching files. All five observers independently assessed the LCCS grade of 70 patients using T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance images at the L2-3, L3-4, L3-4, and L5-S1 disc levels. Analysis was performed twice at an interval of two months.

Results: The inter-observer agreement among all five readers was excellent and test-retest reliability was moderate to excellent for both the Schizas and Lee systems. Positive percentage agreements were found to be over 0.8 in almost all observers with relatively narrow 95% confidence limits.

Conclusion: Both Schizas and Lee MRI grading systems for LCCS are reliable grading systems, and can be used as a learnable method for both clinicians and radiologists.

Citing Articles

Impact of the Disc Vacuum Phenomenon on Surgical Outcomes in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comparative Study between Endoscopic Decompression and Minimally Invasive Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion.

Lee H, Lee K, Lee S, Yang J J Clin Med. 2024; 13(19).

PMID: 39407888 PMC: 11477301. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13195827.

AI-based lumbar central canal stenosis classification on sagittal MR images is comparable to experienced radiologists using axial images.

van der Graaf J, Brundel L, van Hooff M, de Kleuver M, Lessmann N, Maresch B Eur Radiol. 2024; .

PMID: 39299953 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11080-0.

Percutaneous Epidural Neuroplasty for Symptomatic Lumbar Juxtafacet Cysts.

Heo J, Park H, Baek J, Ahn H, Lee S Medicina (Kaunas). 2024; 60(7).

PMID: 39064470 PMC: 11278696. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60071042.

Correction of Spinal Sagittal Alignment after Posterior Lumbar Decompression: Does Severity of Central Canal Stenosis Matter?.

Trenchfield D, Lee Y, Lambrechts M, DAntonio N, Heard J, Paulik J Asian Spine J. 2023; 17(6):1089-1097.

PMID: 38050360 PMC: 10764140. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2023.0075.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Grading Systems for Central Canal and Neural Foraminal Stenoses of the Lumbar and Cervical Spines With a Focus on the Lee Grading System.

Seo J, Lee J Korean J Radiol. 2023; 24(3):224-234.

PMID: 36788771 PMC: 9971835. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2022.0351.

References

Mannion A, Fekete T, Pacifico D, ORiordan D, Nauer S, von Buren M . Dural sac cross-sectional area and morphological grade show significant associations with patient-rated outcome of surgery for lumbar central spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2017; 26(10):2552-2564. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5280-7. View

Sigmundsson F, Kang X, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B . Correlation between disability and MRI findings in lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study of 109 patients operated on by decompression. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(2):204-10. PMC: 3235292. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2011.566150. View

Lonne G, Odegard B, Johnsen L, Solberg T, Kvistad K, Nygaard O . MRI evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis: is a rapid visual assessment as good as area measurement?. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(6):1320-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3248-4. View

Weber C, Giannadakis C, Rao V, Jakola A, Nerland U, Nygaard O . Is There an Association Between Radiological Severity of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Disability, Pain, or Surgical Outcome?: A Multicenter Observational Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 41(2):E78-83. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001166. View

Lee G, Guen Y, Lee J, Joon W, Choi H, Hee S . A new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis on MRI: an easy and reliable method. Skeletal Radiol. 2011; 40(8):1033-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-011-1102-x. View

Nam W, Cho J . The importance of proximal fusion level selection for outcomes of multi-level lumbar posterolateral fusion. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015; 7(1):77-84. PMC: 4329536. DOI: 10.4055/cios.2015.7.1.77. View

Lee S, Jahng T, Kim H . Clinical Experiences of Non-fusion Dynamic Stabilization Surgery for Adjacent Segmental Pathology after Lumbar Fusion. Int J Spine Surg. 2016; 10:8. PMC: 4852593. DOI: 10.14444/3008. View

Zouboulis P, Panagiotis Z, Karageorgos A, Athanasios K, Dimakopoulos P, Panagiotis D . Functional outcome of surgical treatment for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Orthop. 2006; 77(4):670-6. DOI: 10.1080/17453670610012773. View

Park H, Kim S, Lee Y, Lee S, Park N, Choi Y . Clinical correlation of a new practical MRI method for assessing central lumbar spinal stenosis. Br J Radiol. 2013; 86(1025):20120180. PMC: 3635794. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20120180. View

10.

Krishnan A, Dave B, Kambar A, Ram H . Coexisting lumbar and cervical stenosis (tandem spinal stenosis): an infrequent presentation. Retrospective analysis of single-stage surgery (53 cases). Eur Spine J. 2013; 23(1):64-73. PMC: 3897818. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2868-4. View

11.

Kim Y, Kong Y, Lee J, Cheong Y, Kim S, Kim H . Clinical symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis associated with morphological parameters on magnetic resonance images. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(10):2236-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4197-2. View

12.

Burgstaller J, Schuffler P, Buhmann J, Andreisek G, Winklhofer S, Del Grande F . Is There an Association Between Pain and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(17):E1053-E1062. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001544. View

13.

Arbit E, Pannullo S . Lumbar stenosis: a clinical review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; (384):137-43. View

14.

Andreisek G, Deyo R, Jarvik J, Porchet F, Winklhofer S, Steurer J . Consensus conference on core radiological parameters to describe lumbar stenosis - an initiative for structured reporting. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24(12):3224-32. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3346-z. View

15.

Bonett D . Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med. 2002; 21(9):1331-5. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1108. View

16.

Nam W, Chang B, Lee C, Cho J . Clinical and radiological predictive factors to be related with the degree of lumbar back muscle degeneration: difference by gender. Clin Orthop Surg. 2014; 6(3):318-23. PMC: 4143520. DOI: 10.4055/cios.2014.6.3.318. View

17.

Azimi P, Mohammadi H, Benzel E, Shahzadi S, Azhari S . Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis Classification Criteria: A New Tool. Asian Spine J. 2015; 9(3):399-406. PMC: 4472588. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.399. View

18.

Weber C, Rao V, Gulati S, Kvistad K, Nygaard O, Lonne G . Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement of Morphological Grading for Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Global Spine J. 2015; 5(5):406-10. PMC: 4577324. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1551651. View

19.

BURTON C, Kirkaldy-Willis W, Yong-Hing K, Heithoff K . Causes of failure of surgery on the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981; (157):191-9. View

20.

Arana E, Royuela A, Kovacs F, Estremera A, Sarasibar H, Amengual G . Lumbar spine: agreement in the interpretation of 1.5-T MR images by using the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification form. Radiology. 2010; 254(3):809-17. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090706. View