Table 2.
Comparison of cerebrospinal fluid leak conspicuity and image quality between 2D and 3D magnetic resonance myelography.
| n | Comparison using 4-point scale |
AC1 (95 % CI) |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | p-value | Reader 1 vs. 2 | Reader 2 vs. 3 | Reader 3 vs. 1 | |||||||
| 2D | 3D | 2D | 3D | 2D | 3D | 2D | 3D | ||||
| CSF leak conspicuity | 18 | 1.9 ± 0.8 | 3.3 ± 0.5 | < 0.0001 | 0.95 (0.89–1.00) | 0.94 (0.88–0.99) | 0.93 (0.86–1.00) | 0.85 (0.72–0.98) | 0.88 (0.79–0.97) | 0.90 (0.84–0.96) | |
| Fat suppression | 18 | 3.8 ± 0.3 | 2.5 ± 0.6 | < 0.0001 | 0.98 (0.95–1.01) | 0.96 (0.91–1.01) | 0.95 (0.91–1.00) | 0.93 (0.88–0.99) | 0.97 (0.94–1.01) | 0.90 (0.78–1.02) | |
| Venous visualization | 18 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 2.6 ± 0.5 | < 0.0001 | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.92 (0.87–0.98) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 0.95 (0.89–1.00) | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.95 (0.90–1.00) | |
| Severity of CSF flow artifacts | Sagittal, coronal, and 2 oblique 2D vs. sagittal and coronal reformatted 3D | 18 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | NA | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) |
| Axial 2D vs. axial reformatted 3D | 16 | 2.5 ± 0.9 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0001 | 0.55 (0.25–0.84) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 0.75 (0.56–0.93) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 0.86 (0.75–0.97) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | |
CSF cerebrospinal fluid, SD standard deviation, CI confidence interval, NA not available