Dataset Information

How should we grade lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

MRI is the gold standard for evaluating the relationship of disc material to soft tissue and neural structures. However, terminologies used to describe lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression have always been a source of confusion. A clear understanding of lumbar disc terminology among clinicians, radiologists, and researchers is vital for patient care and future research.

Questions/purposes

Through a systematic review of the literature, the purpose of this article is to describe lumbar disc terminology and comment on the reliability of various nomenclature systems and their application to clinical practice.

Methods

PubMed was used for our literature search using the following MeSH headings: "Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Intervertebral Disc Displacement" and "Lumbar Vertebrae" and terms "nomenclature" or "grading" or "classification". Ten papers evaluating lumbar disc herniation/nerve root compression using different grading criteria and providing information regarding intraobserver and interobserver agreement were identified.

Results

To date, the Combined Task Force (CTF) and van Rijn classification systems are the most reliable methods for describing lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression, respectively. van Rijn dichotomized nerve roots from "definitely no root compression, possibly no root compression, indeterminate root compression, possible root compression, and definite root compression" into no root compression (first three categories) and root compression (last two categories). The CTF classification defines lumbar discs as normal, focal protrusion, broad-based protrusion, or extrusion. The CTF classification system excludes "disc bulges," which is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. This potentially accounts for its improved reliability compared with other proposed nomenclature systems.

Conclusions

The main issue in the management of patients with lumbar disc disease and nerve root compression is correlation of imaging findings with clinical presentation and symptomatology to guide treatment and intervention. Although it appears that the most commonly supported nomenclatures have strong interobserver reliability, the classification term "disc bulges" is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. Additional research should focus on the clinical application of the various nomenclatures.

SUBMITTER: Li Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4418997 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aim Accurate severity grading of lumbar spine disease by magnetic resonance images (MRIs) plays an important role in selecting appropriate treatment for the disease. However, interpreting these complex MRIs is a repetitive and time-consuming workload for clinicians, especially radiologists. Here, we aim to develop a multi-task classification model based on artificial intelligence for automated grading of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), lumbar central canal stenosis (LCCS) and lumbar nerve roots compression (LNRC) at lumbar axial MRIs. Methods Total 15254 lumbar axial T2W MRIs as the internal dataset obtained from the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from January 2015 to May 2019 and 1273 axial T2W MRIs as the external test dataset obtained from the Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University from June 2016 to December 2017 were analyzed in this retrospective study. Two clinicians annotated and graded all MRIs using the three international classification systems. In agreement, these results served as the reference standard; In disagreement, outcomes were adjudicated by an expert surgeon to establish the reference standard. The internal dataset was randomly split into an internal training set (70%), validation set (15%) and test set (15%). The multi-task classification model based on ResNet-50 consists of a backbone network for feature extraction and three fully-connected (FC) networks for classification and performs the classification tasks of LDH, LCCS, and LNRC at lumbar MRIs. Precision, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 scores, confusion matrices, receiver-operating characteristics and interrater agreement (Gwet k) were utilized to assess the model’s performance on the internal test dataset and external test datasets. Results A total of 1115 patients, including 1015 patients from the internal dataset and 100 patients from the external test dataset [mean age, 49 years ± 15 (standard deviation); 543 women], were evaluated in this study. The overall accuracies of grading for LDH, LCCS and LNRC were 84.17% (74.16%), 86.99% (79.65%) and 81.21% (74.16%) respectively on the internal (external) test dataset. Internal and external testing of three spinal diseases showed substantial to the almost perfect agreement (k, 0.67 - 0.85) for the multi-task classification model. Conclusion The multi-task classification model has achieved promising performance in the automated grading of LDH, LCCS and LNRC at lumbar axial T2W MRIs.

Project description:As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (? 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.