Introduction: Recent work has focused on characterizing MRI findings predictive of outcome in surgical management of cervical spondylosis. To date, however, agreement in measuring these markers remains unknown. We aim to evaluate interobserver agreement for MRI markers cited to predict outcome in treatment of cervical degenerative conditions.

Methods: A secondary analysis of cervical MRI images was performed among patients who underwent elective cervical spine surgery. Two neuroradiologists independently reviewed MRIs for: presence/absence and length of spinal cord signal change, the intervertebral level of worst compression, measurements of AP and lateral spinal cord diameter in the axial plane, AP measurements in the mid-sagittal plane, and presence/absence of kyphotic deformity. Interobserver reliability was compared using kappa for dichotomous variables were agreement was defined as poor (K=0.00-0.20), fair (K=0.21-0.40), moderate (K=0.41-0.60), good (K=0.61-0.80), or very good (K>0.80). Interclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate reliability for continuous variables.

Results: Markers were measured in 209 patients (N=209). Reliability was fair for cord signal change on T1- (K=0.33, 95% CI 0.04-0.62) and good for T2- (K=0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.86) weighted images. For patients with signal change on T2 (N=22) reliability of signal change length was good (ICC=0.67, 95% CI 0.36-0.85). Reliability was good (K=0.79, 95% CI 0.72-0.87) in identification of level of worst compression. For AP cord diameter reliability was very good (ICC=0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.86; T2-/mid-sagittal plane) and good (ICC=0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.73; T2-/axial plane). Reliability in measurement of lateral cord diameter was moderate (ICC=0.55; 95% CI 0.44-0.64; T2-/axial plane) and good for kyphotic deformity (K=0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.85).

Conclusions: The good and very good reliability observed in measuring T2-weighted spinal cord signal change, length of T2 signal change, level of worst cord compression, AP cord diameter, and kyphosis support the use of these markers in standardized reporting practices.

Patient Care: Given the lack of standardized reporting practices for measuring the multiple MRI characteristics in cervical spine degenerative conditions, efforts may be focused on establishing routine citation of markers with good and very good reliability.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of this session, participants should be able to: 1) Describe the MRI markers cited to be predictive of surgical outcome in cervical degenerative disease 2) Identify which markers exhibit the greatest interobserver reliability

References: 1. Harrop JS, Hanna A, Silva MT, Sharan A. Neurological manifestations of cervical spondylosis: an overview of signs, symptoms, and pathophysiology. Neurosurgery 2007;60:S14-20. 2. Shedid D, Benzel EC. Cervical spondylosis anatomy: pathophysiology and biomechanics. Neurosurgery 2007;60:S7-13. 3. Alafifi T, Kern R, Fehlings M. Clinical and MRI predictors of outcome after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neuroimaging 2007;17:315-322. 4. Avadhani A, Rajasekaran S, Shetty AP. Comparison of prognostic value of different MRI classifications of signal intensity change in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J 2010;10:475-485. 5. Chatley A, Kumar R, Jain VK, Behari S, Sahu RN. Effect of spinal cord signal intensity changes on clinical outcome after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;11:562-567. 6. Singh A, Crockard HA, Platts A, Stevens J. Clinical and radiological correlates of severity and surgery-related outcome in cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg 2001;94:189-198. 7. Suri A, Chabbra RP, Mehta VS, Gaikwad S, Pandey RM. Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J 2003;3:33-45. 8. Ahn JS, Lee JK, Kim BK. Prognostic factors that affect the surgical outcome of the laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Surg 2010;2:98-104. 9. Fehlings MG, Furlan JC, Massicotte EM, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of maximum canal compromise and spinal cord compression for evaluation of acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:1719-1725. 10. Karpova A, Arun R, Cadotte DW, et al. Assessment of spinal cord compression by magnetic resonance imaging--can it predict surgical outcomes in degenerative compressive myelopathy? A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:1409-1421. 11. Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, Nawata K, Yamasaki D, Nanjo Y. Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and mri of the spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1238-1245. 12. Shin JJ, Jin BH, Kim KS, Cho YE, Cho WH. Intramedullary high signal intensity and neurological status as prognostic factors in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010;152:1687-1694. 13. Chen CJ, Lyu RK, Lee ST, Wong YC, Wang LJ. Intramedullary high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prediction of prognosis with type of intensity. Radiology 2001;221:789-794. 14. Ohara A, Miyamoto K, Naganawa T, Matsumoto K, Shimizu K. Reliabilities of and correlations among five standard methods of assessing the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2585-2591; discussion 2592. 15. Karpova A, Arun R, Davis AM, et al. Reliability of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging methods in the assessment of spinal canal stenosis and cord compression in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:245-252. 16. Batzdorf U, Batzdorff A. Analysis of cervical spine curvature in patients with cervical spondylosis. Neurosurgery 1988;22:827-836. 17. Shoukri MM, Asyali MH, Donner A. Sample size requirements for the design of reliability study: review and new results. . Stat Methods Med Res 2004;13:251-271. 18. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall., 1991. 19. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174. 20. Li L, Nawar S. Reliability analysis: Calculate and compare intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) in SAS. Nesug. 2007. Statistics and data analysis. In, 2007. 21. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2024-2029. 22. Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Vavruch L, Oberg B. Predictive factors for the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Eur Spine J 2003;12:274-280. 23. Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS, et al. The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 2012;71:662-669; discussion 669. 24. Villavicencio AT, Babuska JM, Ashton A, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment. Neurosurgery 2011;68:1309-1316; discussion 1316. 25. Cook C, Braga-Baiak A, Pietrobon R, Shah A, Neto AC, de Barros N. Observer agreement of spine stenosis on magnetic resonance imaging analysis of patients with cervical spine myelopathy. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:271-276.