Extraspinal incidental findings and reporting rates at lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging: more than a spinal examination?

Abstract

Aim: To reveal the prevalence characteristics of extraspinal findings incidentally detected in lumbar spinal MRI examinations, determine their rate of reporting status, and analyze the findings in terms of clinical significance and patient benefit in order to help prevent possible medicolegal and ethical problems. Material and Methods: A total of 2,912 lumbar MRI examinations were retrospectively reviewed. The extraspinal findings were identified and analyzed according to their clinical significance. MRI examination reports were analyzed and whether extraspinal findings were included in these reports was determined. Results: The study included a total of 2,912 patients, of whom 41% (n=1,195) were male and 59% (n=1,717) were female. The mean age of all patients was 48.25±15.92 (8-90) years. The mean age of men was 47.31±16.96 (9-90) and that of women was 48.91±15.12 (8-90) years. Extraspinal findings were present in 29% (n=844) of the patients and absent in 71% (n=2,068). The number of extraspinal findings 1 for 25.10% (n=731) of the patients, 2 in 3.61% (n=105), 3 in 0.24% (n=7), and 4 in 0.03% (n=1), with the total number being determined as 966. Conclusion: Lumbar MRI images should be more carefully examined during the reporting stage and clinical evaluation in order to prevent possible morbidity-mortality situations by making accurate and early referrals in patient management and to avoid ethical-judicial problems that physicians may face due to the inability to recognize existing pathologies that may be outside the targeted area.

Keywords

• magnetic resonance imaging
• lumbar
• extraspinal
• spinal

References

1. Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C. Non-specific low back pain. The lancet 2012; 379: 482-91.
2. Ibrahim H, Elsadawy MEI. Incidental findings in lumbar spine MRI: their prevalence and potential impact on patient management. Egyptian J Radiol Nuclear Med 2019; 50: 1-5.
3. Roudsari B, Jarvik JG. Lumbar spine MRI for low back pain: indications and yield. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 550-9.
4. Weiner DK, Kim Y-S, Bonino P, Wang T. Low back pain in older adults: are we utilizing healthcare resources wisely? Pain Med 2006; 7: 143-50.
5. Tuncel SA, Çaglı B, Tekataş A, Kırıcı MY, Ünlü E, Gençhellaç H. Extraspinal incidental findings on routine MRI of lumbar spine: prevalence and reporting rates in 1278 patients. Korean J Radiol 2015; 16: 866.
6. Maxwell A, Keating D, Nickerson J. Incidental abdominopelvic findings on expanded field-of-view lumbar spinal MRI: frequency, clinical importance, and concordance in interpretation by neuroimaging and body imaging radiologists. Clin Radiol 2015; 70: 161-7.
7. Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 2005; 236: 3-9.
8. Sobhan M, Samiee M, Asgari Y, Ahmadi M. Incidental findings of the lumbar spine at MRI in patients diagnosed with discopathy. Int J Med Imaging 2016; 4: 44.

9. Wagner SC, Morrison WB, Carrino JA, Schweitzer ME, Nothnagel H. Picture archiving and communication system: effect on reporting of incidental findings. Radiology 2002; 225: 500-5.
10. Dilli A, Ayaz UY, Turanlı S, et al. Incidental extraspinal findings on magnetic resonance imaging of intervertebral discs. Arch Med Sci 2014; 10: 757.
11. Park H-J, Jeon Y-H, Rho M-H, et al. Incidental findings of the lumbar spine at MRI during herniated intervertebral disk disease evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 1151-5.
12. Quattrocchi CC, Giona A, Di Martino AC, et al. Extra-spinal incidental findings at lumbar spine MRI in the general population: a large cohort study. Insights Imaging 2013; 4: 301-8.
13. Semaan HB, Bieszczad JE, Obri T, et al. Incidental Extraspinal Findings at Lumbar Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Spine 2015; 40: 1436-43.
14. Lee SY, Landis MS, Ross IG, Goela A, Leung AE. Extraspinal findings at lumbar spine CT examinations: prevalence and clinical importance. Radiology 2012; 263: 502-9.