Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2023; 27(05): 561-565
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768247
Review Article

Results of an International Survey on Spinal Imaging by the ASNR/ASSR/ESNR/ESSR “Nomenclature 3.0” Working Group

Gennaro D'Anna 
1   Neuroimaging Unit, ASST Ovest Milanese, Legnano, Milan, Italy
,
Lubdha Shah
2   Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Peter G. Kranz
3   Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
,
Joshua A. Hirsch
4   Department of Neurointerventional Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
M. Khan
5   Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Michele Johnson
6   Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging and Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
,
Antoine Feydy
7   Université de Paris Cité, F-75006, Paris, France
,
J. Nathan
8   Department of Neuroradiology, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
,
L. Manfre
9   Minimal Invasive Spine Department of Neurosurgery, Istituto Oncologico del Mediterraneo IOM, Viagrande, Italy
,
Dan T. Nguyen
10   Neuroradiology and Pain Solutions of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Gordan Sze
11   Department of Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
,
Johan Van Goethem
12   Department of Radiology, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
13   Department of Medical and Molecular Imaging, General Hospital VITAZ, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium
,
Filip M. Vanhoenacker
14   Department of Radiology General Hospital Sint-Maarten Mechelen, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
15   Antwerp/Ghent University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Our goal was to determine if “Nomenclature 2.0,” the classification of lumbar disk pathology consensus, should be updated. We conducted a social media and e-mail-based survey on preferences regarding the use of classification on magnetic resonance spine reporting. Members of the European Society of Neuroradiology, European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, and American Society of Spine Radiology received a 15-question online survey between February and March 2022. A total of 600 responses were received from 63 countries. The largest number of responses came from Italy and the United States. We found that 71.28% of respondents used Nomenclature 2.0, Classification of Lumbar Disk Pathology. But classification on stenosis is used less often: 53.94% and 60% of respondents do not use any classification of spinal canal stenosis and foraminal stenosis, respectively. When queried about which part of Nomenclature needs improving, most respondents asked for a Structured Reporting Template (SRT), even though 58.85% of respondents do not currently use any template and 54% routinely use a clinical information questionnaire. These results highlight the importance of an updated Nomenclature 3.0 version that integrates the classifications of lumbar disk disease and spinal canal and foraminal stenosis. Further attention should also be directed toward developing a robust endorsed SRT.

Keywords

spine - imaging - nomenclature - disk - magnetic resonance imaging

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
10 October 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Fardon DF, Milette PC. Combined Task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine 2001; 26 (05) E93-E113
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Fardon DF, Williams AL, Dohring EJ, Murtagh FR, Gabriel Rothman SL, Sze GK. Lumbar disc nomenclature: version 2.0: Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine J 2014; 14 (11) 2525-2545
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Parenteau CS, Lau EC, Campbell IC, Courtney A. Prevalence of spine degeneration diagnosis by type, age, gender, and obesity using Medicare data. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 5389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ravindra VM, Senglaub SS, Rattani A. et al. Degenerative lumbar spine disease: estimating global incidence and worldwide volume. Global Spine J 2018; 8 (08) 784-794
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Martin BI. Overtreating chronic back pain: time to back off?. J Am Board Fam Med 2009; 22 (01) 62-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Fried JG, Andrew AS, Ring NY, Pastel DA. Changes in primary care health care utilization after inclusion of epidemiologic data in lumbar spine MR imaging reports for uncomplicated low back pain. Radiology 2018; 287 (02) 563-569
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA. et al. Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009; 250 (01) 161-170
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Pizzini FB, Poletti M, Beltramello A. et al. Degenerative spine disease: Italian position paper on acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging. Insights Imaging 2021; 12 (01) 14
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Mamisch N, Brumann M, Hodler J, Held U, Brunner F, Steurer J. Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study Working Group Zurich. Radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis: results of a Delphi survey. Radiology 2012; 264 (01) 174-179
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Lee GY, Lee JW, Choi HS, Oh KJ, Kang HS. A new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis on MRI: an easy and reliable method. Skeletal Radiol 2011; 40 (08) 1033-1039
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A. et al. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine 2010; 35 (21) 1919-1924
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lee S, Lee JW, Yeom JS. et al. A practical MRI grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194 (04) 1095-1098
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Pfirrmann CWA, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 2001; 26 (17) 1873-1878
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Thompson JP, Pearce RH, Schechter MT, Adams ME, Tsang IKY, Bishop PB. Preliminary evaluation of a scheme for grading the gross morphology of the human intervertebral disc. Spine 1990; 15 (05) 411-415
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar