Extraspinal findings prevalence and clinical significance in 4250 lumbar spine MRI exams
Abstract To assess extraspinal findings (ESFs) prevalence in lumbar spine MRI, including clinically significant findings using a systematic approach, and to determine their reporting rate. Lumbar spine MRI scans were retrospectively reviewed over 18 months by two radiologists. Reading discrepancies...
Guardado en:
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | article |
Lenguaje: | EN |
Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/97c897aeb26e45858177ae5bc67d36ce |
Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
Sumario: | Abstract To assess extraspinal findings (ESFs) prevalence in lumbar spine MRI, including clinically significant findings using a systematic approach, and to determine their reporting rate. Lumbar spine MRI scans were retrospectively reviewed over 18 months by two radiologists. Reading discrepancies were resolved by consensus. ESFs were classified according to the involved system, clinical diagnosis, and clinical significance. The reporting rate was estimated by referring to the original report. There were 1509 ESFs in 1322/4250 patients with a substantial agreement between the two radiologists (kappa = 0.8). Almost half (621/1322) were in the 45–60 age group. Females represented 56.6% (748/1322). 74.2% (1120/1509) of the ESFs involved the urinary system among which 79.6% (892/1120) were renal cysts. Clinically significant findings represented 8.7% (131/1509) among which hydronephrosis represented 23% (30/131). First time detected malignant lesions represented 4.6% (6/131). ESFs reporting rate was 47.3%. 58.8% of the clinically significant ESFs were not reported. ESFs prevalence was 31.1%. The Urinary system was the most commonly involved. Most ESFs were benign warranting no further workup. However, clinically significant ESF were not infrequently detected. More than half of the clinically significant findings were not reported. A systematic review of MRI images is highly recommended to improve patient’s outcome. |
---|