ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Epidural steroid injections may offer little-to-no short-term benefit in the overall population of patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with lidocaine alone. We investigated whether imaging could identify subgroups of patients who might benefit most. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis prospective, double-blind trial was performed, and patients were randomized to receive an epidural injection of lidocaine with or without corticosteroids. Patients (n = 350) were evaluated for qualitative and quantitative MR imaging or CT measures of lumbar spinal stenosis. The primary clinical end points were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the leg pain numeric rating scale at 3 weeks following injection. ANCOVA was used to assess the significance of interaction terms between imaging measures of spinal stenosis and injectate type on clinical improvement. RESULTS: There was no difference in the improvement of disability or leg pain scores at 3 weeks between patients injected with epidural lidocaine alone compared with corticosteroid and lidocaine when accounting for the primary imaging measures of qualitative spinal stenosis assessment (interaction coefficients for disability score, -0.1; 95% CI, -1.3 to 1.2; P = .90; and for the leg pain score, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.8; P = .81) or the quantitative minimum thecal sac cross-sectional area (interaction coefficients for disability score, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .40; and for the leg pain score, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging measures of spinal stenosis are not associated with differential clinical responses following epidural corticosteroid injection.
Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Spinal Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Spinal Stenosis/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome , Adult , Aged , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Humans , Injections, Epidural/methods , Lumbar Vertebrae , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Retrospective Studies , Spinal Stenosis/pathology , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conventional MR imaging of the cervical spinal cord in MS is challenged by numerous artifacts and interreader variability in lesion counts. This study compares the relatively novel WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence with STIR and proton density-weighted TSE sequences in the evaluation of cervical cord lesions in patients with MS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective blinded analysis of cervical cord MR imaging examinations of 50 patients with MS was performed by 2 neuroradiologists. In each patient, the number of focal lesions and overall lesion conspicuity were measured in the STIR/proton density-weighted TSE and WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence groups. Independent side-by-side comparison was performed to categorize the discrepant lesions as either "definite" or "spurious." Lesion contrast ratio and edge sharpness were independently calculated in each sequence. RESULTS: Substantial interreader agreement was noted on the WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence (κ = 0.82) compared with STIR/proton density-weighted TSE (κ = 0.52). Average lesion conspicuity was better on the WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence (conspicuity of 3.1/5.0 versus 3.7/5.0, P < .01, in the WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence versus STIR/proton density-weighted TSE, respectively). Spurious lesions were more common on STIR/proton density-weighted TSE than on the WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence (23 and 30 versus 3 and 4 by readers 1 and 2, respectively; P < .01). More "definite" lesions were missed on STIR/proton density-weighted TSE compared with the WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence (37 and 38 versus 3 and 6 by readers 1 and 2, respectively). Lesion contrast ratio and edge sharpness were highest on the WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence. CONCLUSIONS: There is better interreader consistency in the lesion count on the WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence compared with STIR/proton density-weighted TSE sequences. The focal cord lesions are visualized with better conspicuity due to better contrast ratio and edge sharpness. There are fewer spurious lesions on the WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence compared with STIR/proton density-weighted TSE. The WM-suppressed T1 inversion recovery sequence could potentially be substituted for either STIR or proton density-weighted TSE sequences in routine clinical protocols.
