A Comparison of Radiostereometric Analysis and Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Lumbar Spinal Fusion in a Sheep Model

Abstract

Study Design Prospective animal study.

Objective The aim of this animal study is to evaluate the accuracy of radiostereometric analysis (RSA) compared with computed tomographic (CT) scan in the assessment of spinal fusion after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using histology as a gold standard.

Methods Three non-adjacent ALIFs (L1–L2, L3–L4, and L5–L6) were performed in nine sheep. The sheep were divided into three groups of three sheep. All the animals were humanely killed immediately after having the last scheduled RSA. The lumbar spine was removed and in vitro fine cut CT and histopathology were performed.

Results Using histological assessment as the gold standard for assessing fusion, RSA demonstrated better results (100% sensitivity and 66.7% specificity; positive predictive value [PPV] = 27.3%, negative predictive value [NPV] =100.0%) compared with CT (66.7% sensitivity and 60.0% specificity [PPV = 16.7%, NPV = 93.8%]).

Conclusions RSA demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity when compared with CT. Furthermore, RSA has the advantage of much lower radiation exposure compared with fine cut CT. Further studies are required to see if RSA remains superior to CT scan for the assessment spinal fusion in the clinical setting.

Assessment of Class of Evidence (CoE) for individual studies of diagnostic test evaluation

Methodological principle
Study design
Prospective cohort design	X
Retrospective cohort design
Case–control design
Broad spectrum of patients with expected condition	a
Appropriate reference standard used	X
Adequate description of test and reference for replication	X
Blinded comparison with appropriate reference	X
Reference standard performed independently of test	X
Evidence level	II
Note: Blank box indicates criterion not met, could not be determined, or information not reported by author or was not reported. aThis study contained nine animal subjects.

Keywords

radiostereometric analysis - spinal fusion - assessment - computed tomography - histology

• References

• 1 Baramki HG, Papin P, Steffen T. A surgical approach to the ventral aspect of the lumbar vertebrae in the sheep model. Surg Radiol Anat 2000; 22 (1) 25-27
• 2 Pape D, Fritsch E, Kelm J , et al. Lumbosacral stability of consolidated anteroposterior fusion after instrumentation removal determined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis and direct surgical exploration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27 (3) 269-274
• 3 Johnsson R, Selvik G, Strömqvist B, Sundén G. Mobility of the lower lumbar spine after posterolateral fusion determined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990; 15 (5) 347-350
• 4 Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Strömqvist B. Radiostereometry in lumbar spine research. Acta Orthop Suppl 2006; 77 (323) 1-42
• 5 Zoëga B, Kärrholm J, Lind B. Mobility provocation radiostereometry in anterior cervical spine fusions. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (6) 631-636
• 6 Shah RR, Mohammed S, Saifuddin A, Taylor BA. Comparison of plain radiographs with CT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cages and transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (4) 378-385
• 7 Cunningham BW, Kanayama M, Parker LM , et al. Osteogenic protein versus autologous interbody arthrodesis in the sheep thoracic spine. A comparative endoscopic study using the Bagby and Kuslich interbody fusion device. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24 (6) 509-518
• 8 Williams AL, Gornet MF, Burkus JK. CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion: current concepts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26 (8) 2057-2066
• 9 Dickson G. Methods of Calcified Tissue Preparation. New York, NY: Elsevier Science; 1984
• 10 Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Djurasovic M. Reliability and agreement between fine-cut CT scans and plain radiography in the evaluation of posterolateral fusions. Spine J 2007; 7 (1) 39-43
• 11 Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Sailer P. Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of fine-cut CT scans with reconstructions to determine the status of an instrumented posterolateral fusion with surgical exploration as reference standard. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32 (8) 892-895
• 12 Solchaga LA, Hee CK, Aguiar DJ , et al. Augment bone graft products compare favorably with autologous bone graft in an ovine model of lumbar interbody spine fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37 (8) E461-E467
• 13 Grauer JN, Patel TC, Erulkar JS, Troiano NW, Panjabi MM, Friedlaender GE. 2000 Young Investigator Research Award winner. Evaluation of OP-1 as a graft substitute for intertransverse process lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26 (2) 127-133
• 14 Sidhu KS, Prochnow TD, Schmitt P, Fischgrund J, Weisbrode S, Herkowitz HN. Anterior cervical interbody fusion with rhBMP-2 and tantalum in a goat model. Spine J 2001; 1 (5) 331-340
• 15 Nakajima T, Iizuka H, Tsutsumi S, Kayakabe M, Takagishi K. Evaluation of posterolateral spinal fusion using mesenchymal stem cells: differences with or without osteogenic differentiation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32 (22) 2432-2436
• 16 Santos ER, Goss DG, Morcom RK, Fraser RD. Radiologic assessment of interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28 (10) 997-1001
• 17 Derbyshire B, Prescott RJ, Porter ML. Notes on the use and interpretation of radiostereometric analysis. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (1) 124-130