Shun-Wu FAN, Xiang-Qian FANG, Yun-Jian LİU, He-Jun YU, Yin-Jiang LU, Chao LIU

Reliability and variability in the interpretation of lumbar high intensity zone

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of high intensity zone (HIZ) and to assess discrepancy in the interpretation, as well as investigate the effects of parameters of HIZ on interobserver variation.Methods: Four spine surgeons made independent observations on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from 207 consecutive patients from 3 institutions. The ? statistic was used to characterize interand intraobserver reliability for visual assessments of HIZ. The corresponding MRI was provided to 2 additional spine surgeons for quantitative measurements. The parameters of HIZ, including signal intensity (SI) and area ratio (HIZ%), were used to assess the interobserver variation of HIZ.Results: The overall interobserver agreement for visual assessments was substantial (?=0.62 at L4-5 and 0.61 at L5-S1), and intraobserver agreement was excellent (?=0.84 at L4-5 and 0.86 at L5-S1). Of 93 observed HIZ, 17 instances (18.3%) were agreed upon by all visual observers. The SI with full agreement was significantly brighter than all the others (p<0.01). The HIZ% with 2 agreements was significantly smaller than those with 4 agreements (p=0.04) and 3 agreements (p=0.03). Although fewer observers with consensus were associated with smaller HIZ%, the difference was not significant (p>0.05).Conclusion: The reliability in the interpretation of HIZ was sufficient for spine surgeons with differing levels of experience. This study highlighted that signal intensity was the primary cause of variability in visual observation

___

Brant-Zawadzki MN, Jensen MC, Obuchowski N, Ross JS, Modic MT. Interobserver and intraobserver vari- ability in interpretation of lumbar disc abnormalities. A comparison of two nomenclatures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1257-64.

Raininko R, Manninen H, Battié MC, Gibbons LE, Gill K, Fisher LD. Observer variability in the assess- ment of disc degeneration on magnetic resonance images of the lumbar and thoracic spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1029-35.

Feinstein AR. An additional basic science for clinical med- icine: IV. The development of clinimetrics. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:843-8.

Espeland A, Korsbrekke K, Albrektsen G, Larsen JL. Ob- server variation in plain radiography of the lumbosacral spine. Br J Radiol 1998;71:366-75.

Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Moderate versus mediocre: the re- liability of spine MR data interpretations. Radiology 2009;250:15-7.

van Rijn JC, Klemetsö N, Reitsma JB, Majoie CB, Huls- mans FJ, Peul WC, et al. Observer variation in MRI evalu- ation of patients suspected of lumbar disk herniation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:299-303.

Aprill C, Bogduk N. High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imag- ing. Br J Radiol 1992;65:361-9.

Schellhas KP, Pollei SR, Gundry CR, Heithoff KB. Lum- bar disc high-intensity zone. Correlation of magnetic res- onance imaging and discography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:79-86.

Lam KS, Carlin D, Mulholland RC. Lumbar disc high- intensity zone: the value and significance of provocative discography in the determination of the discogenic pain source. Eur Spine J 2000;9:36-41.

Peng B, Hou S, Wu W, Zhang C, Yang Y. The pathogenesis and clinical significance of a high-intensity zone (HIZ) of lumbar intervertebral disc on MR imaging in the patient with discogenic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2006;15:583-7.

Ricketson R, Simmons JW, Hauser BO. The prolapsed intervertebral disc. The high-intensity zone with discogra- phy correlation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:2758-62.

Ito M, Incorvaia KM, Yu SF, Fredrickson BE, Yuan HA, Rosenbaum AE. Predictive signs of discogenic lumbar pain on magnetic resonance imaging with discography correlation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:1252-60.

Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. MR imag- ing of the lumbar spine: prevalence of intervertebral disk extrusion and sequestration, nerve root compression, end plate abnormalities, and osteoarthritis of the facet joints in asymptomatic volunteers. Radiology 1998;209:661-6.

Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Car- ragee EJ, Kaiser J, et al. Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009;250:161-70.

Zook J, Djurasovic M, Crawford C 3rd, Bratcher K, Glassman S, Carreon L. Inter- and intraobserver reliabili- ty in radiographic assessment of degenerative disk disease. Orthopedics 2011;34.

Hancock M, Maher C, Macaskill P, Latimer J, Kos W, Pik J. MRI findings are more common in selected pa- tients with acute low back pain than controls? Eur Spine J 2012;21:240-6.

Berg L, Neckelmann G, Gjertsen O, Hellum C, John- sen LG, Eide GE, et al. Reliability of MRI findings in candidates for lumbar disc prosthesis. Neuroradiology 2012;54:699-707.

Takatalo J, Karppinen J, Niinimäki J, Taimela S, Mutanen P, Sequeiros RB, et al. Association of modic changes, Schmorl's nodes, spondylolytic defects, high-intensity zone lesions, disc herniations, and radial tears with low back symptom severity among young Finnish adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1231-9.

Smith BM, Hurwitz EL, Solsberg D, Rubinstein D, Corenman DS, Dwyer AP, et al. Interobserver reliability of detecting lumbar intervertebral disc high-intensity zone on magnetic resonance imaging and association of high- intensity zone with pain and anular disruption. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:2074-80.

Hebelka H, Hansson T. HIZ's relation to axial load and low back pain: investigated with axial loaded MRI and pres- sure controlled discography. Eur Spine J 2013;22:734-9.

Liu C, Cai HX, Zhang JF, Ma JJ, Lu YJ, Fan SW. Quanti- tative estimation of the high-intensity zone in the lumbar spine: comparison between the symptomatic and asymp- tomatic population. Spine J 2014;14:391-6.

Rankine JJ, Gill KP, Hutchinson CE, Ross ER, William- son JB. The clinical significance of the high-intensity zone on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phi- la Pa 1976) 1999;24:1913-20.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agree- ment for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.

Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability stud- ies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 2005;85:257-68.

Madan SS, Rai A, Harley JM. Interobserver error in inter- pretation of the radiographs for degeneration of the lum- bar spine. Iowa Orthop J 2003;23:51-6.

Obuchowski NA, Zepp RC. Simple steps for improving multiple-reader studies in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgen- ol 1996;166:517-21.

Beam CA, Baker ME, Paine SS, Sostman HD, Sullivan DC. Answering unanswered questions: proposal for a shared resource in clinical diagnostic radiology research. Radiology 1992;183:619-20.

Arana E, Royuela A, Kovacs FM, Estremera A, Sarasíbar H, Amengual G, et al. Lumbar spine: agreement in the interpretation of 1.5-T MR images by using the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification form. Radiology 2010;254:809-17.

Ker M. Issues in the use of kappa. Invest Radiol 1991;26:78-83.

Bogduk N. Point of View: Predictive signs of discogenic lumbar pain on magnetic resonance imaging with discog- raphy correlation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:1259- 1260.