Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
EditorialEDITORIALS

A Radiologist with a Ruler…

Gary M. Miller
American Journal of Neuroradiology April 2003, 24 (4) 556;
Gary M. Miller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

The first day of residency, I was told that a radiologist looking for a ruler is a radiologist in trouble. During my fellowship in neuroradiology, we had a special ruler that was designed to identify shift of the pineal gland on the anteroposterior skull radiograph. The first-generation CT scanner made that ruler obsolete. We continue to train our residents and fellows in the tradition of training their eyes to identify and characterize abnormalities without the need for a ruler.

In this issue, Stafira et al found that qualitative evaluation of cervical spinal stenosis was subjective. Six neuroradiologists could not agree on the level, degree, or cause of cervical stenosis on CT or MR images in 38 patients. On the basis of these results, they recommend the implementation of semiquantitative measurement of the spinal canal on cross-sectional studies. Possible measurements discussed include a one-dimensional measurement similar to the formula used in the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial, a calculation of the ratio of the spinal canal to the vertebral body in the sagittal dimension (Torg-Pavlov ratio), or a calculation of the cross-sectional area from two measurements.

The results of this study are not particularly surprising. The difference between mild and moderate central canal stenosis and between moderate and severe central canal stenosis is blurred. Mild stenosis to one observer may be moderate to another. This is influenced by one’s experience. During our careers in radiology, we fluctuate from being “overcallers” to “undercallers” based on the accuracy of our last call. With experience, the amplitude of these fluctuations decreases. The term “stenosis” itself is confusing. Our surgeons understand stenosis to mean surgical disease with significant spinal cord compression. Everything else is spondylosis.

The statistical methodology that the authors used is the standard methodology that is usually used in this type of analysis, but it is not a perfect measure of agreement. The κ statistic sometimes looks bad even when most observers agree. My impression from their data is that the agreement is pretty good for the degree of stenosis, particularly since the six radiologists were from various backgrounds with various training.

Stafira et al are correct that consistency in reporting is the most important factor in evaluating the efficacy of imaging studies and ultimately patient care. More accurately measuring the cross-sectional area or diameter of the cervical canal is likely to be more consistent, but may have limited clinically utility. The status of the spinal cord is the most important factor that influences whether a patient may benefit from decompressive surgery or whether further clinical investigations are warranted to rule other causes of myelopathy. Houser et al (1) found a high correlation with the shape of the spinal cord and myelopathy on neurologic examination. Ninety-eight percent of patients with severe spinal cord compression, described as a “banana”-shaped cord, had myelopathy clinically, whereas the frequency of myelopathy decreased to 75% of patients with moderately severe cord compression and 71% of patients with moderate cord compression. A consistent and reproducible description of spinal cord compression may be more helpful than measuring the diameter, area, or ratio of the central spinal canal. Other contributing factors important in surgical decision making include cord signal intensity on T2-weighted images, cord caliber and shape (atrophy), involvement at multiple levels, and obstruction to the flow of contrast material in the subarachnoid space as seen at myelography. The eye can integrate multiple factors that cannot be described with a single measurement. Radiologic interpretation remains an art refined by years of experience.

Finally, the pathophysiology of myelopathy is complex. From data by Houser et al (1), 2% of patients with severe cord compression, 25% of patients with moderately severe spinal cord compression, and 29% of patients with moderate cord compression at imaging had no evidence of myelopathy clinically. Even with accurate and reproducible measurements, we must remember that our clinical colleagues are treating patients and not the images.

Reference

  1. ↵
    Houser OW, Onofrio BM, Miller GM, Folger WN, Smith PL. Cervical spondylotic stenosis and myelopathy: evaluation with computed tomographic myelography. Mayo Clin Proc 1994;69:557–563
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 24 (4)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 24, Issue 4
1 Apr 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Radiologist with a Ruler…
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A Radiologist with a Ruler…
Gary M. Miller
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2003, 24 (4) 556;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A Radiologist with a Ruler…
Gary M. Miller
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2003, 24 (4) 556;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Reference
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Teaching Lessons by MR CLEAN
  • Coffee Houses and Reading Rooms
  • Comeback Victory
Show more EDITORIALS

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2021 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2022 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire