![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Introduction. MRI scanning has historically been considered difficult to interpret in the early period following lumbar spine surgery, and hence of limited value. We investigate the hypothesis that MRI scanning within 6 weeks of lumbar spine surgery cannot accurately diagnose neural compression in symptomatic patients, and define the utility of postoperative MRI in this context.
Methods. A series of 32 consecutive patients had early postoperative MRI following lumbar discectomy or laminectomy for continued, worsening or new symptoms of neural compression. The neuroradiologists' reports were evaluated for the reported presence of neural compression and confidence level (low, medium, high). These MRI findings were then compared to the patients' subsequent course and findings of any surgery performed.
Results. Twenty of 29 scans (69%) were confidently predictive of the correct treatment pathway (reoperation with positive finding or conservative treatment with a good outcome) whereas 3/3 (100%) patients who had conservative management despite the MRI confidently suggesting compression had poor outcome. The MRI is highly likely to influence management: 11/14 (79%) patients with scans suggesting neural compression had revision surgery and 18/18 (100%) patients with no neural compression on MRI were managed conservatively.
Conclusions. Our data suggest that early MRI scanning after lumbar laminectomy or discectomy accurately detects neural compression at the surgery site in patients with continued or worsening symptoms.
Key words:
Declaration of interest: The authors confirm that they are jointly responsible for this work. Marios Papadopoulos is the senior author and acts as guarantor. Matthew Crocker is funded by the Neurosciences Research Foundation and The London Deanery and Timothy Jones is funded by the Neurosciences Research Foundation. The authors confirm they have no competing interests to declare.