Value of Percutaneous Treatments of the Lumbar Spine in Back and Nerve Root Pain

1997 ◽  
Vol 1 (02) ◽  
pp. 349-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Revel
Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 902
Author(s):  
Nils Christian Lehnen ◽  
Robert Haase ◽  
Jennifer Faber ◽  
Theodor Rüber ◽  
Hartmut Vatter ◽  
...  

Our objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained on multiple MR imaging features of the lumbar spine, to detect a variety of different degenerative changes of the lumbar spine. One hundred and forty-six consecutive patients underwent routine clinical MRI of the lumbar spine including T2-weighted imaging and were retrospectively analyzed using a CNN for detection and labeling of vertebrae, disc segments, as well as presence of disc herniation, disc bulging, spinal canal stenosis, nerve root compression, and spondylolisthesis. The assessment of a radiologist served as the diagnostic reference standard. We assessed the CNN’s diagnostic accuracy and consistency using confusion matrices and McNemar’s test. In our data, 77 disc herniations (thereof 46 further classified as extrusions), 133 disc bulgings, 35 spinal canal stenoses, 59 nerve root compressions, and 20 segments with spondylolisthesis were present in a total of 888 lumbar spine segments. The CNN yielded a perfect accuracy score for intervertebral disc detection and labeling (100%), and moderate to high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of disc herniations (87%; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.89), extrusions (86%; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.89), bulgings (76%; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.78), spinal canal stenoses (98%; 95% CI: 0.97, 0.99), nerve root compressions (91%; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.92), and spondylolisthesis (87.61%; 95% CI: 85.26, 89.21), respectively. Our data suggest that automatic diagnosis of multiple different degenerative changes of the lumbar spine is feasible using a single comprehensive CNN. The CNN provides high diagnostic accuracy for intervertebral disc labeling and detection of clinically relevant degenerative changes such as spinal canal stenosis and disc extrusion of the lumbar spine.


1998 ◽  
Vol 140 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.F. Kahamba ◽  
S.A. Rath ◽  
G. Antoniadis ◽  
O. Schneider ◽  
U. Neff ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
J. Max Findlay ◽  
Nathan Deis

AbstractBackground:Patients with lumbar spine complaints are often referred for surgical assessment. Only those with clinical and radiological evidence of nerve root compression are potential candidates for surgery and appropriate for surgical assessment. This study examines the appropriateness of lumbar spine referrals made to neurosurgeons in Edmonton, Alberta.Methods:Lumbar spine referrals to a group of ten neurosurgeons at the University of Alberta were reviewed over three two month intervals. Clinical criteria for “appropriateness” for surgical assessment were as follows: •“Appropriate” referrals were those that stated leg pain was the chief complaint, or those that described physical exam evidence of neurological deficit, and imaging reports (CT or MRI) were positive for nerve root compression. •“Uncertain” referrals were those that reported both back and leg pain without specifying which was greater, without mention of neurologic deficit, and when at least possible nerve root compression was reported on imaging. •“Inappropriate” referrals contained no mention of leg symptoms or signs of neurological deficit, and/or had no description of nerve root compression on imaging.Results:Of the 303 referrals collected, 80 (26%) were appropriate, 92 (30%) were uncertain and 131 (44%) were inappropriate for surgical assessment.Conclusions:Physicians seeking specialist consultations for patients with lumbar spine complaints need to be better informed of the criteria which indicate an appropriate referral for surgical treatment, namely clinical and radiological evidence of nerve root compression. Avoiding inappropriate referrals could reduce wait-times for both surgical consultation and lumbar spine surgery for those patients requiring it.


Spine ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (20) ◽  
pp. 2387-2389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelia S. Carr ◽  
Michael A. Edgar

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document