Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAubin, Michelle E.
dc.contributor.authorEskander, Mark S.
dc.contributor.authorDrew, Jacob M.
dc.contributor.authorMarvin, Julianne
dc.contributor.authorEskander, Jonathan P.
dc.contributor.authorEck, Jason C.
dc.contributor.authorConnolly, Patrick J.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:55.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:24:30Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:24:30Z
dc.date.issued2010-12-15
dc.date.submitted2012-11-13
dc.identifier.citationSpine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Dec 15;35(26):E1610-1. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eea537">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0362-2436 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eea537
dc.identifier.pmid21116215
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/49203
dc.description.abstractSTUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to identify whether vertebral arteries (VA), normal or aberrant, are routinely described in cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VA injury is a serious complication of anterior cervical spine surgery. Aberrant VA anatomy is a potential cause of such complications. Therefore, VA anatomy should be evaluated in cervical MRIs. METHODS: Six neuroradiologists were blinded to the study design and were asked to interpret 79 cervical MRIs. Of these, 39 had aberrant VAs, whereas 40 had normal VAs. Initially, the indications for the study included only a description of patient's symptoms. The radiologists were then given the same MRIs with different indications. This time, the indications included the patient's symptoms, a request for annotations on the VA, and a definition of VA anomaly. All of the MRI interpretations were then evaluated for the frequency and accuracy of VA description. RESULTS: When the indications for the study did not specifically request a comment on VAs, the VA was never described (0%). When the indications included the specific request and definition, all 6 commented on the VA (100%). Three of the 6 radiologists were 100% accurate in identifying all 40 normal and 39 aberrant VAs, whereas the other 3 identified all 40 normal and 38 of 39 aberrant VAs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the VA is not a standard component of cervical spine MRI interpretations. Because of the significant complications related to its injury, VA anatomy, whether normal or variant, needs to be evaluated in cervical MRIs. When ordering a cervical MRI, surgeons should request a description of the VA and any anomalies.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=21116215&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eea537
dc.subjectCervical Vertebrae
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subject*Magnetic Resonance Imaging
dc.subjectOrthopedic Procedures
dc.subjectProspective Studies
dc.subjectSingle-Blind Method
dc.subjectVertebral Artery
dc.subjectLife Sciences
dc.subjectMedicine and Health Sciences
dc.titleIdentification of type 1: interforaminal vertebral artery anomalies in cervical spine MRIs
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleSpine
dc.source.volume35
dc.source.issue26
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/ssp/141
dc.identifier.contextkey3463766
html.description.abstract<p>STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective study.</p> <p>OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to identify whether vertebral arteries (VA), normal or aberrant, are routinely described in cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretations.</p> <p>SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VA injury is a serious complication of anterior cervical spine surgery. Aberrant VA anatomy is a potential cause of such complications. Therefore, VA anatomy should be evaluated in cervical MRIs.</p> <p>METHODS: Six neuroradiologists were blinded to the study design and were asked to interpret 79 cervical MRIs. Of these, 39 had aberrant VAs, whereas 40 had normal VAs. Initially, the indications for the study included only a description of patient's symptoms. The radiologists were then given the same MRIs with different indications. This time, the indications included the patient's symptoms, a request for annotations on the VA, and a definition of VA anomaly. All of the MRI interpretations were then evaluated for the frequency and accuracy of VA description.</p> <p>RESULTS: When the indications for the study did not specifically request a comment on VAs, the VA was never described (0%). When the indications included the specific request and definition, all 6 commented on the VA (100%). Three of the 6 radiologists were 100% accurate in identifying all 40 normal and 39 aberrant VAs, whereas the other 3 identified all 40 normal and 38 of 39 aberrant VAs.</p> <p>CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the VA is not a standard component of cervical spine MRI interpretations. Because of the significant complications related to its injury, VA anatomy, whether normal or variant, needs to be evaluated in cervical MRIs. When ordering a cervical MRI, surgeons should request a description of the VA and any anomalies.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathssp/141
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Physical Rehabilitation
dc.source.pagesE1610-1


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record