Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1043–1049 | Cite as

MR-guided discography using an open 1 Tesla MRI system

  • Florian StreitparthEmail author
  • T. Hartwig
  • B. Schnackenburg
  • P. Strube
  • M. Putzier
  • S. Chopra
  • M. De Bucourt
  • B. Hamm
  • U. Teichgräber
Interventional

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility of MR-guided discography using an open 1 Tesla MRI system.

Methods

48 disc segments of 41 patients scheduled for intradiscal thermal treatment, total disc replacement or spondylodesis were examined. A 1.0-T open MRI was used for instrument guidance and imaging. After primary disc puncture under guidance of interactive PDw TSE imaging, 1–2 ml of gadolinium contrast saline mixture was injected into the disc. The occurrence of memory pain during injection was recorded. Axial and sagittal T1w TSE images with and without fat saturation were obtained. All MRI discograms were analysed by two readers, who were blinded to the clinical findings.

Results

Overall, the placement of the puncture needle in the targeted disc was accurate under real-time MR guidance. Injections were technically successful in all cases. No major complications occurred. The mean procedure time was 17 min (range 13–34 min). Image quality of contrast-enhanced MR discograms was excellent when using an optimized gadolinium contrast saline mixture of 1:600. Memory pain was detected in 16 out of 48 affected segments.

Conclusion

MR-guided discography is accurate and safe. Multiplanar dynamic imaging facilitates the puncture of discs and provides high-quality MR discograms.

Keywords

Interventional MRI Open 1 Tesla Discography Discoblock Lumbar spine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Heidi Kotalla, surgical nurse, and Andreas Thomas, MRI technician, for their collaboration and support.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson SR, Flanagan B (2000) Discography. Curr Rev Pain 4:345–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bogduk N, Modic MT (1996) Lumbar discography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:402–404Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grasshoff H, Kayser R, Mahlfeld U, Mahlfeld K (2001) Diskography findings and results of percutaneous laser disk decompression (PLDD). Rofo 173:191–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J et al (2001) Painful lumbar disk derangement: relevance of endplate abnormalities at MR imaging. Radiology 218:420–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Derby R, Howard MW, Grant JM, Lettice JJ, Van Peteghem PK, Ryan DP (1999) The ability of pressure-controlled discography to predict surgical and nonsurgical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:364–371Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD (2003) Lumbar discography. Spine J 3:11S–27SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ohtori S, Kinoshita T, Yamashita M et al (2009) Results of surgery for discogenic low back pain: a randomized study using discography versus discoblock for diagnosis. Spine Phila Pa 1976 34:1345–1348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Silverman SG, Hooton S, Tuncali K, Adams DF (2000) Patient and personnel exposure during CT fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Radiology 216:180–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falco FJ, Moran JG (2003) Lumbar discography using gadolinium in patients with iodine contrast allergy followed by postdiscography computed tomography scan. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:E1–E4Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang TS, Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Shapiro M, Lentz D, Gartland J (2002) Gadopentetate dimeglumine as an intradiscal contrast agent. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:839–843Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kluner C, Kivelitz D, Rogalla P, Putzier M, Hamm B, Enzweiler C (2006) Percutaneous discography: comparison of low-dose CT, fluoroscopy and MRI in the diagnosis of lumbar disc disruption. Eur Spine J 15:620–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sequeiros RB, Klemola R, Ojala R, Jyrkinen L, Vaara T, Tervonen O (2003) Percutaneous MR-guided discography in a low-field system using optical instrument tracking: a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 17:214–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sequeiros RB, Niinimaki J, Ojala R et al (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided diskography and diagnostic lumbar 0.23 T MRI: an assessment study. Acta Radiol 47:272–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Streitparth F, Walter T, Wonneberger U et al (2010) Image-guided spinal injection procedures in open high-field MRI with vertical field orientation: feasibility and technical features. Eur Radiol 20:395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Streitparth F, Gebauer B, Melcher I et al (2009) MR-guided laser ablation of osteoid osteoma in an open high-field system (1.0 T). Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 32:320–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Streitparth F, Knobloch G, Balmert D et al (2010) Laser-induced thermotherapy (LITT)-evaluation of a miniaturised applicator and implementation in a 1.0-T high-field open MRI applying a porcine liver model. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1831-6 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ricke J, Thormann M, Ludewig M et al (2010) MR-guided liver tumor ablation employing open high-field 1.0 T MRI for image-guided brachytherapy. Eur Radiol 20:1985–1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chopra SS, Rump J, Schmidt SC et al (2009) Imaging sequences for intraoperative MR-guided laparoscopic liver resection in 1.0-T high field open MRI. Eur Radiol 9:2191–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinkernelle JG, Streitparth F, Rump J, Teichgräber U (2010) Adaptation of a wireless PC mouse for modification of GUI during intervention in an open highfield MRI at 1.0 T. Rofo 182:348–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sachs BL, Vanharanta H, Spivey MA et al (1987) Dallas discogram description. A new classification of CT/discography in low-back disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12:287–294Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Collins CD, Stack JP, O’Connell DJ et al (1990) The role of discography in lumbar disc disease: a comparative study of magnetic resonance imaging and discography. Clin Radiol 42:252–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slipman CW, Rogers DP, Isaac Z et al (2002) MR lumbar discography with intradiscal gadolinium in patients with severe anaphylactoid reaction to iodinated contrast material. Pain Med 3:23–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kakitsubata Y, Theodorou DJ, Theodorou SJ et al (2003) Magnetic resonance discography in cadavers: tears of the annulus fibrosus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 407:228–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wonneberger U, Schnackenburg B, Streitparth F, Walter T, Rump J, Teichgraber UK (2010) Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging-compatible needles and interactive sequences for musculoskeletal interventions using an open high-field magnetic resonance imaging scanner. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 33:346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walsh TR, Weinstein JN, Spratt KF, Lehmann TR, Aprill C, Sayre H (1990) Lumbar discography in normal subjects. A controlled, prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:1081–1088PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carragee EJ (2000) Is lumbar discography a determinate of discogenic low back pain: provocative discography reconsidered. Curr Rev Pain 4:301–308PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Streitparth
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. Hartwig
    • 2
  • B. Schnackenburg
    • 3
  • P. Strube
    • 2
  • M. Putzier
    • 2
  • S. Chopra
    • 4
  • M. De Bucourt
    • 1
  • B. Hamm
    • 1
  • U. Teichgräber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCharité, Humboldt-University Medical SchoolBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Center for Musculoskeletal SurgeryCharité - University Medicine BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Philips Medical SystemsHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation SurgeryCharité - University Medicine BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations