Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov;36(11):2184–2190. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4416

Results from the subjective and objective analyses comparing IMAR and wFBP

Neuroradiologist Evaluation wFBP (Median) IMAR (Median) Test P Value
Subjective
    Overall soft-tissue visualization scorea 1 ± 1.50 3 ± 1.27 WSR <.001
        Cervical (n = 21) 2 ± 1.54 4 ± 1.06 WSR .001
        Thoracic (n = 8) NAb NAb
        Lumbar (n = 39) 1 ± 1.24 3 ± 1.15 WSR <.001
    Soft-tissue structure with worst artifacts, visualization scorea 0 ± 1.34 3 ± 1.19 WSR <.001
        Cervical (n = 21) 1 ± 1.53 3 ± 1.20 WSR .001
        Thoracic (n = 8) NAb NAb
        Lumbar (n = 39) 0 ± 1.18 2 ± 1.04 WSR <.001
    Bone (cortex) visualization score 5 ± 0.49 5 ± 0.87 WSR .02
        Cervical (n = 21) 5 ± 0.36 5 ± 0.30 WSR .16
        Thoracic (n = 8) NAb NAb
        Lumbar (n = 39) 5 ± 0.54 5 ± 0.16 WSR <.001
Objective
    Vertebral body cortical obscuration (in degrees) 7 ± 17 3 ± 12 PTT <.001
    Vertebral body cortical obscuration, when present (n = 15) (degrees) 34 ± 22 13 ± 24 PTT <.001
    Length of flame artifacts (mm) 29 ± 18 11 ± 7 PTT <.001

Note:—NA indicates not applicable; PTT, 2-tailed paired t test; WSR, Wilcoxon signed rank test.

a

Structures evaluated in the region of metal fixation hardware included the central canal, spinal cord, neural foramina, and prevertebral soft tissues.

b

A subgroup analysis of thoracic spine cases was not performed due to the few cases in this group.