Advertisement

Neuroradiology

, 53:191 | Cite as

The “dehydrated” lumbar intervertebral disk on MR, its anatomy, biochemistry and biomechanics

  • Vitcor Haughton
Advanced Courses of the ESNR Meeting 2011

MR imaging of the lumbar spine often reveals disks with lower than normal signal in the nucleus pulposus without decreased disk height or abnormal contours of the annulus fibrosus. These are often referred to as “dehydrated”, “desiccated” or “dark” disks. The clinical significance of dehydrated disks may not be generally known. Official reports of MR images tend to emphasize the appearance of disk margins rather than signal intensity in the disks. Bulging disks and protrusions may be considered generally more clinically significant than dark disks. Furthermore, scientific studies in the radiologic literature on the subject of dark disks seem to be few. Therefore, a review of the current knowledge regarding the dark disk seemed both necessary and timely. The purpose of this communication is to review briefly the morphologic, biochemical and biomechanical features of the dark disk and its potential to cause low back pain or radiculopathy.

The defining feature of the dehydrated disk is...

References

  1. 1.
    Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson JP, Pearce RH, Schechter MT et al (1990) Preliminary evaluation of a scheme for grading the gross morphology of the human intervertebral disc. Spine 15:411–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yu S, Sether LA, Ho PSP, Wagner M, Haughton VM (1988) Tears of the annulus fibrosus: correlation between MR and pathologic findings in cadavers. Am J Neuroradiol 9:367–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buirski G (1992) Magnetic resonance signal patterns of lumbar discs in patients with low back pain. A prospective study with discographic correlation. Spine 17(10):1199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vanharanta H, Sachs BL, Spivey MA, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Rashbaum RF, Johnson RG, Ohnmeiss D, Mooney V (1987) The relationship of pain provocation to lumbar disc deterioration as seen by CT/Discography. Spine 12:295–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Osti OL, Fraser RD, Vernon-Roberts B (1990) Annular tears and degeneration of the intervertebral disc - preliminary results of an experimental study. Spine 15:762–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horton WC, Daftari TK (1992) Which disc as visualized by magnetic resonance imaging is actually a source of pain? A correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and discography. Spine 17(6 Suppl):S164–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lam KS, Carlin D, Mulholland RC (2000) Lumbar disc high-intensity zone: the value and significance of provocative discography in the determination of the discogenic pain source. Eur Spine J 9:36–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aprill C, Bogduk N (1992) High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 65:361–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ross JS, Modic MT, Masaryk TJ (1989) Tears of the anulus fibrosus:assessment with Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR 10:1251–1254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldie I (1958) Granulation tissue in the ruptured intervertebral disc. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 42(4):302–4, Yoshida H, Fujiwara A, Tamai K, Kobayashi N, Saiki K, Saotome KPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yoshida H, Fujiwara A, Tamai K, Kobayashi N, Saiki K, Saotome K (2002) Diagnosis of symptomatic disc by magnetic resonance imaging: T2-weighted and gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(3):193–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marinelli NL, Haughton VM, Muñoz A, Anderson PA (2009) T2 relaxation times of intervertebral disc tissue correlated with water content and proteoglycan content. Spine 34:520–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    JohannessenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weidenbaum M, Foster RJ, Best BA et al (1992) Correlating magnetic resonance imaging with the biochemical content of the normal human intervertebral disc. J Orthop Res 10:552–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson RE, Pearcy MJ, Downing KJ, Manthey BA, Parkinson IH, Fazzalari NL (2000) Disc lesions and the mechanics of the intervertebral joint complex. Spine 25:3026–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt TA, An HS, Lim TH, Nowicki BH, Haughton VM (1998) The stiffness of lumbar spinal motion segments with a high-intensity zone in the anulus fibrosus. Spine 23:2167–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nowicki BH, Haughton VM, Schmidt TA, Lim T-H, An HS, Riley LH, Yu L, Hong J-W (1996) Occult lumbar lateral spinal stenosis in neural foramina subjected to physiologic loading. Am J Neuroradiol 17:1605–1614PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nowicki BH, Yu S, Reinartz J, Pintar F, Yoganandan N, Haughton VM (1990) Effect of axial loading on neural foramina and nerve roots in the lumbar spine. Radiology 176:433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haughton VM, Schmidt TA, Keele K, An HS, Lim TH (2000) Flexibility of lumbar spinal motion segments correlated to type of tears in the annulus fibrosus. J Neurosurg 92(1 Suppl):81–6PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WisconsinOconomowocUSA

Personalised recommendations