Posterior disk displacement: Morphologic assessment and measurement reliability—lumbar spine

• Published in: Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics Vol. 24; no. 5; pp. 317 - 326
• Main Authors: Cooley, Jeffrey R., Danielson, Clark D., Schultz, Gary D., Hall, Timothy A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.06.2001
• Subjects: Adult; California; Chiropractic - statistics & numerical data; Female; Humans; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - diagnostic imaging; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - etiology; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - pathology; Intervertebral Disk; Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging; Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation; Male; Manipulation, Spinal - adverse effects; Measurement Reliability; Observer Variation; Radiography; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies; Washington; Intervertebral Disk; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Measurement Reliability
• ISSN: 0161-4754; 1532-6586
• DOI: 10.1067/mmt.2001.115266

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging is often used to assess for disk displacement after manipulation, but limited information about the true incidence of iatrogenic herniations exists. To design a study that evaluates for a causal relationship, preliminary data must be obtained relating to the size of different types of disk displacement. The reliability of chiropractic radiologists in assessing disks and a comparison of different measuring devices should also be evaluated. Objective: To identify average measurements for normal and displaced disks and to assess the reliability of measurements by chiropractic radiologists. Study Design: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability study assessing disk displacement on magnetic resonance scans. Methods: Three evaluators assessed the disks on 122 magnetic resonance scans from two imaging centers. Six categories were graded, and digitizer and ruler measurements were compared. Forty-four scans were reassessed for intraobserver agreement. Intraobserver and interobserver variations were measured with intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa statistical analysis. Measurement device correlation was assessed with Pearson's r. Results: Clear size differences between different types of disk displacement were noted. Interexaminer measurement reliability was 0.78 to 0.84. Agreement concerning the presence of disk displacement was 85% (κ = 0.68), and the classification of disk displacements was 76% (κ = 0.60). Intraexaminer measurement reliability was 0.40 to 0.49. Intraexaminer agreement concerning the presence of disk displacement was 76% (κ = 0.52), and the classification of disk displacements was 62% to 69% (κ = 0.38 to 0.46). Normal versus bulged disk distinctions demonstrated the most disagreement. The ruler and digitizer correlation coefficient was 0.968. Conclusions: Different disk types demonstrated distinct size averages. Interexaminer agreement was good concerning disk assessment and measurements. Intraexaminer agreement was lower than expected. A millimetric ruler is an acceptable alternative to digital measurement devices. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001;24:317-26)