↓ Skip to main content

The value of CT and MRI in the classification and surgical decision-making among spine surgeons in thoracolumbar spinal injuries

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
The value of CT and MRI in the classification and surgical decision-making among spine surgeons in thoracolumbar spinal injuries
Published in
European Spine Journal, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4623-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Rishi Mugesh Kanna, Gregory D. Schroeder, Frank Cumhur Oner, Luiz Vialle, Jens Chapman, Marcel Dvorak, Michael Fehlings, Ajoy Prasad Shetty, Klaus Schnake, Anupama Maheshwaran, Frank Kandziora

Abstract

Although imaging has a major role in evaluation and management of thoracolumbar spinal trauma by spine surgeons, the exact role of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to radiographs for fracture classification and surgical decision-making is unclear. Spine surgeons (n = 41) from around the world classified 30 thoracolumbar fractures. The cases were presented in a three-step approach: first plain radiographs, followed by CT and MRI images. Surgeons were asked to classify according to the AOSpine classification system and choose management in each of the three steps. Surgeons correctly classified 43.4 % of fractures with plain radiographs alone; after, additionally, evaluating CT and MRI images, this percentage increased by further 18.2 and 2.2 %, respectively. AO type A fractures were identified in 51.7 % of fractures with radiographs, while the number of type B fractures increased after CT and MRI. The number of type C fractures diagnosed was constant across the three steps. Agreement between radiographs and CT was fair for A-type (k = 0.31), poor for B-type (k = 0.19), but it was excellent between CT and MRI (k > 0.87). CT and MRI had similar sensitivity in identifying fracture subtypes except that MRI had a higher sensitivity (56.5 %) for B2 fractures (p < 0.001). The need for surgical fixation was deemed present in 72 % based on radiographs alone and increased to 81.7 % with CT images (p < 0.0001). The assessment for need of surgery did not change after an MRI (p = 0.77). For accurate classification, radiographs alone were insufficient except for C-type injuries. CT is mandatory for accurately classifying thoracolumbar fractures. Though MRI did confer a modest gain in sensitivity in B2 injuries, the study does not support the need for routine MRI in patients for classification, assessing instability or need for surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Other 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 46%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Engineering 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 37 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,855,186
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,919
of 4,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,482
of 339,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#25
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.