Idiopathic scoliosis - The clinical value of radiologists' interpretation of pre- and postoperative radiographs with interobserver and interdisciplinary variability
Hc. Crockett et al., Idiopathic scoliosis - The clinical value of radiologists' interpretation of pre- and postoperative radiographs with interobserver and interdisciplinary variability, SPINE, 24(19), 1999, pp. 2007-2009
Study Design. A retrospective analysis of radiographic reports on 161 conse
cutive patients with idiopathic scoliosis at the authors' institution.
Objectives. To compare various radiographic findings that directly affect s
urgical decision-making and the evaluation of postsurgical outcomes to dete
rmine the usefulness of information gathered from radiologists' multiple du
plicate reading of films.
Summary of Background Data. To the authors' knowledge, there are no previou
s studies on the readings of scoliosis films by radiologists and surgeons.
Methods. The patient pool was drawn from the private practices of two board
-certified orthopaedic surgeons. Each set of radiographs was read by one of
seven board-certified radiologists and by one of the two surgeons. The two
reports of each radiograph were compared. The factors included in the repo
rts were scoliosis deformity, scoliosis type, curve progression, curve magn
itude, levels of the curve, kyphosis, lordosis, the presence of instrumenta
tion, and the presence of a fusion.
Results. The radiologists and orthopedic surgeons mentioned the presence of
scoliosis in 95% and 99.4% of their reports, respectively. The type of sco
liosis was mentioned in 5% of reports by radiologists and in 99.4% by ortho
pedists. Progression of the curve was documented in 16.7% of the radiologis
ts' reports and in 98.4% of orthopedists' reports, The magnitude of the cur
ve was slated in 12.6% of the radiologists' reports, compared with 98.1% of
the orthopaedists' reports. The levels of the curve were documented in 10.
6% and 95.6% of reports by the radiologists and orthopedists, respectively.
Radiologists mentioned kyphosis and lordosis in 28% and 26.5% of reports,
respectively. These same two entities were mentioned in 98.2% and 79.4% of
reports by the orthopedists. Finally, the radiologists noted the presence o
f instrumentation and of a fusion in 77.8% and 68.3% of reports, respective
ly. Orthopedists mentioned these same two entities in 84.4% and 100% of rep
orts, respectively. In the radiologists' reports on the presence of instrum
entation, 20% were mislabeled or improperly identified. Seven percent of th
e fusions documented by the radiologists were incorrect because they were r
ecorded before biologic fusion could have taken place. In all these categor
ies, the radiologists provided information in excess of the orthopedic repo
rts a total of 1.9% of the time. Of this 1.9% additional information, 36.8%
was incorrectly read or mislabeled. The other 63.2% of the additional info
rmation (1.9% of the total) did not elucidate anything of real clinical sig
nificance that was missed by the orthopedic surgeons (e.g., a tumor in the
lung).
Conclusions. These findings show that the attending orthopedic spine surgeo
ns gained little useful information from the radiologists' multiple duplica
te reading of films.