Diagnostic Quality of 3D T2-SPACE Compared with T2-FSE in the Evaluation of Cervical Spine MRI Anatomy

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Mugler JP 3rd.

   . Optimized three-dimensional fast-spin-echo MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:745–67 doi:10.1002/jmri.24542 pmid:24399498

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Senova S,
   3. Hosomi K,
   4. Gurruchaga JM, et al

   . Three-dimensional SPACE fluid-attenuated inversion recovery at 3 T to improve subthalamic nucleus lead placement for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: from preclinical to clinical studies. J Neurosurg 2016;125:472–80 doi:10.3171/2015.7.JNS15379 pmid:26745490

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Ciftci E,
   3. Anik Y,
   4. Arslan A, et al

   . Driven equilibrium (drive) MR imaging of the cranial nerves V-VIII: comparison with the T2-weighted 3D TSE sequence. Eur J Radiol 2004;51:234–40 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2003.10.019 pmid:15294330

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Czerny C,
   3. Trattnig S,
   4. Baumgartner WD, et al

   . [MRI of the regions of the inner ear and cerebellopontine angle using a 3D T2-weighted turbo spin-echo sequence. Comparison with conventional 2D T2-weighted turbo spin-echo sequences and T1-weighted spin-echo sequences]. [Article in German] Rofo 1997;167:377–83 doi:10.1055/s-2007-1015547 pmid:9417266

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Blizzard DJ,
   3. Haims AH,
   4. Lischuk AW, et al

   . 3D-FSE isotropic MRI of the lumbar spine: novel application of an existing technology. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015;28:152–57 doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31827a32ee pmid:23168390

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Fu MC,
   3. Buerba RA,
   4. Neway WE 3rd., et al

   . Three-dimensional isotropic MRI of the cervical spine: a diagnostic comparison with conventional MRI. Clin Spine Surg 2016;29:66–71 doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a355e5 pmid:26889989

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Lee S,
   3. Jee WH,
   4. Jung JY, et al

   . MRI of the lumbar spine: comparison of 3D isotropic turbo spin-echo SPACE sequence versus conventional 2D sequences at 3.0 T. Acta Radiol 2015;56:174–81 doi:10.1177/0284185114524196 pmid:24553584

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Meindl T,
   3. Wirth S,
   4. Weckbach S, et al

   . Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine: comparison of 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo, 2D T2*weighted gradient-recalled echo and 3D T2-weighted variable flip-angle turbo spin echo sequences. Eur Radiol 2009;19:713–21 doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1175-7 pmid:18813933

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Obuchowski NA,
   2. Gazelle GS

   2. Obuchowski NA

   . Statistical Issues in Study Design. In: Obuchowski NA, Gazelle GS, eds. Handbook for Clinical Trials of Imaging and Image-Guided Interventions. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016:103–25
10. 10.↵
    2. Viera AJ,
    3. Garrett JM

    . Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360–63 pmid:15883903

    PubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Ross JS

    . MR imaging of the cervical spine: techniques for two- and three-dimensional imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159:779–86 doi:10.2214/ajr.159.4.1529843 pmid:1529843

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Chokshi FH,
    3. Tu RK,
    4. Nicola GN, et al

    . Myelography CPT coding updates: effects of 4 new codes and unintended consequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:997–99 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4666 pmid:26744447

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Cowley P

    . Neuroimaging of spinal canal stenosis. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2016;24:523–39 doi:10.1016/j.mric.2016.04.009 pmid:27417399

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. van Rijn JC,
    3. Klemetsö N,
    4. Reitsma JB, et al

    . Observer variation in MRI evaluation of patients suspected of lumbar disk herniation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:299–303 doi:10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840299 pmid:15615992

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Stafira JS,
    3. Sonnad JR,
    4. Yuh WT, et al

    . Qualitative assessment of cervical spinal stenosis: observer variability on CT and MR images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:766–69 pmid:12695220

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Braga-Baiak A,
    3. Shah A,
    4. Pietrobon R, et al

    . Intra- and inter-observer reliability of MRI examination of intervertebral disc abnormalities in patients with cervical myelopathy. Eur J Radiol 2008;65:91–98 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.014 pmid:17532165

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Cook C,
    3. Braga-Baiak A,
    4. Pietrobon R, et al

    . Observer agreement of spine stenosis on magnetic resonance imaging analysis of patients with cervical spine myelopathy. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:271–76 doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.03.006 pmid:18486747

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Kuijper B,
    3. Beelen A,
    4. van der Kallen BF, et al

    . Interobserver agreement on MRI evaluation of patients with cervical radiculopathy. Clin Radiol 2011;66:25–29 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2010.07.010 pmid:21147295

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Chen W,
    3. Wunderlich A,
    4. Petrick N, et al

    . Multireader multicase reader studies with binary agreement data: simulation, analysis, validation, and sizing. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2014;1:031011 doi:10.1117/1.JMI.1.3.031011 pmid:26158051

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Sayah A,
    3. Jay AK,
    4. Toaff JS, et al

    . Effectiveness of a rapid lumbar spine MRI protocol using 3D T2-weighted SPACE imaging versus a standard protocol for evaluation of degenerative changes of the lumbar spine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:614–20 doi:10.2214/AJR.15.15764 pmid:27275868

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Freund W,
    3. Klessinger S,
    4. Mueller M, et al

    . [Utility of coronal oblique slices in cervical spine MRI: improved detection of the neuroforamina]. [Article in German] Radiologe 2015;55:1000–08 doi:10.1007/s00117-015-0007-4 pmid:26311439

    CrossRefPubMed