Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 27–35 | Cite as

Correlation of radiographic and MRI parameters to morphological and biochemical assessment of intervertebral disc degeneration

  • Lorin M. Benneker
  • Paul F. HeiniEmail author
  • Suzanne E. Anderson
  • Mauro Alini
  • Keita Ito
Original Article

Abstract

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a common finding in MRI scans and X-rays. However, their correlation to morphological and biochemical changes is not well established. In this study, radiological and MRI parameters of DDD were assessed and compared with morphological and biochemical findings of disc degeneration. Thirty-nine human lumbar discs (L1–S1), age 19–86 years, were harvested from eight cadavers. Within 48 h postmortem, MRIs in various spin-echo sequences and biplanar radiographs of intact spines were obtained. Individual discs with endplates were then sectioned in the mid-sagittal plane and graded according to the morphological appearance. Samples from the nucleus of each disc were harvested for biochemical analysis including water and proteoglycan contents. On MRIs, T2-signal intensity, Modic changes, disc extension beyond the interspace (DEBIT), nucleus pulposus shape, annular tears, osteophytes and endplate integrity were graded. On radiographs, an independent observer classified the parameters disc height, endplate sclerosis, osteophytes, Schmorl’s nodes, intradiscal calcifications and endplate shape. General linear-regression models were used for statistical analysis. Backward elimination with a 10% significance cut-off level was used to identify the most significant parameters, which then were summed to create composite scores for radiography, MRI and the combination of both methods. The grading was performed by three observers, and a reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha model was used to control interobserver agreement. The three radiographic parameters height-loss, osteophytes and intradiscal calcifications correlated significantly with the morphological degree of degeneration (p<0.001, R 2 =642). Significant differences of even one morphological grade could also be differentiated in the composite radiological score (p<0.05), except at the extremes between grades 1 and 2 and grades 4 and 5. All MRI parameters correlated significantly with the morphological grade (p<0.05); however Modic changes, T2-intensity and osteophytes accounted for 83% of the variation in the data. T2-signal intensity correlated significantly with H2O and proteoglycan content (p<0.001), and was best for detecting highly degenerated discs. Regression showed that the combined score was better correlated with the morphological grade (p<0.001, R 2 =775) than either the composite radiographic (p<0.001, R 2 =642) or composite MRI (p<0.001, R 2 =696) alone. Based on the combined score, a backwards elimination of the regression was performed, in which the parameters Modic changes, and T2-intensity loss (MRI) as well as calcifications (X-ray) accounted for 87% of the variability. The interobserver validation showed a high correlation for all three scores (Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.95 to 0.97). Conclusion: selective imaging parameters and a newly created scoring scheme were found to correlate with disc degeneration as determined in a morphological manner. Surprisingly, radiographic parameters were able to distinguish different stages of degeneration, whereas MRI could only detect advanced stages of disc degeneration. We conclude that X-rays may remain a cost-effective, non-invasive in vivo-grading method to detect early disc degeneration, and, combined with MRI, correlate best with morphological and biochemical assessment of disc degeneration.

Keywords

Intervertebral disc Degeneration Radiographs MRI 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by a grant from the AO Foundation, Switzerland. The authors wish to thank the University of Basel and McGill University, Montreal, for providing spine specimens, K. Zwygart for conducting the MRI scans; and D. Pfluger for statistical assistance

References

  1. 1.
    Andersson GB (1998) Epidemiology of low back pain. Acta Orthop Scand [Suppl] 281:28–31Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou J, Steffen T, Nelson F, Winterbottom N, Hollander AP, Poole RA, Aebi M, Alini M (1996) The human lumbar intervertebral disc: evidence for changes in the biosynthesis and denaturation of the extracellular matrix with growth, maturation, ageing, and degeneration. J Clin Invest 98:996–1003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou J, Pike GB, Steffen T, Baramki H, Poole AR, Aebi M, Alini M (1998) Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of degenerative disc disease. Magn Reson Med 40:900–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benneker LM, Anderson S, Heini P, Alini M, Ito K (2002) Vertebral endplate marrow contact channel occlusions: a mechanism for intervertebral disc degeneration? ISSLS (unpublished data)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW (1990) Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:403–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braithwaite I, White J, Saifuddin A, Renton P, Taylor BA (1998) Vertebral end-plate (Modic) changes on lumbar spine MRI: correlation with pain reproduction at lumbar discography. Eur Spine J 7:363–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckwalter J, Martin J (1996) Intervertebral disk degeneration and back pain. In: Weinstein JN (ed) Low back pain: A scientific and clinical overview. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Rosemont, IL, pp 607–623Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crock HV (1982) Traitement chirurgical de la calcification du nucleus pulposus du disque intervertebral dorsal et lombaire, chez l’adulte. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 68:171–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fahey V, Opeskin K, Silberstein M, Anderson R, Briggs C (1998) The pathogenesis of Schmorl’s nodes in relation to acute trauma. An autopsy study. Spine 23:2272–2275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farndale RW, Buttle DJ, Barrett AJ (1986) Improved quantitation and discrimination of sulphated glycosaminoglycans by use of dimethylmethylene blue. Biochim Biophys Acta 883:173–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frobin W, Brinckmann P, Biggemann M (1997) Objektive Messung der Höhe lumbaler Bandscheiben aus seitlichen Röntgen-Übersichtsaufnahmen. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135:395–402Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frymoyer JW, Newberg A, Pope MH, Wilder DG, Clements J, MacPherson B (1984) Spine radiographs in patients with low-back pain. An epidemiological study in men. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:1048–1055PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamanishi C, Kawabata T, Yosii T, Tanaka S (1994) Schmorl’s nodes on magnetic resonance imaging. Their incidence and clinical relevance. Spine 19:450–453PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hilton RC, Ball J, Benn RT (1976) Vertebral end-plate lesions (Schmorl’s nodes) in the dorsolumbar spine. Ann Rheum Dis 35:127–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS (1994) Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain [see comments]. N Engl J Med 331:69–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen MC, Kelly AP, Brant-Zawadzki MN (1994) MRI of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Magn Reson Q 10:173–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Katz ME, Teitelbaum SL, Gilula LA, Resnick D, Katz SJ (1988) Radiologic and pathologic patterns of end-plate-based vertebral sclerosis. Invest Radiol 23:447–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lamer TJ (1999) Lumbar spine pain originating from vertebral osteophytes. Reg Anesth Pain Med 24:347–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luoma K, Riihimaki H, Raininko R, Luukkonen R, Lamminen A, Viikari-Juntura E (1999) Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine 25:487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacNab I (1971) The traction spur. An indicator of segmental instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 53:663–670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malmivaara A, Videman T, Kuosma E, Troup JD (1987) Plain radiographic, discographic, and direct observations of Schmorl’s nodes in the thoracolumbar junctional region of the cadaveric spine. Spine 12:453–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Modic MT, Ross JS (1991) Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 22:283–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR (1988) Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 166:193–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Neill TW, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, Bhalla AK, Reeve J, Reid DM, Todd C, Woolf AD, Silman AJ (1999) The distribution, determinants, and clinical correlates of vertebral osteophytosis: a population based survey. J Rheumatol 26:842–848PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Osti OL, Fraser RD (1992) MRI and discography of annular tears and intervertebral disc degeneration. A prospective clinical comparison [see comments]. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:431–435 [published erratum appears in J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992 Sep; 74(5):793]Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paajanen H, Erkintalo M, Kuusela T, Dahlstrom S, Kormano M (1989) Magnetic resonance study of disc degeneration in young low-back pain patients. Spine 14:982–985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paajanen H, Erkintalo M, Parkkola R (1997) Age-dependent correlation of low-back pain and lumbar disc degeneration. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 116:106–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panagiotacopulos ND, Pope MH, Krag MH, Block R (1987) Water content in human intervertebral discs. Part I. Measurement by magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 12:912–917PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peterson CK, Bolton JE, Wood AR (2000) A cross-sectional study correlating lumbar spine degeneration with disability and pain. Spine 25:218–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pfirrmann CW, Resnick D (2001) Schmorl nodes of the thoracic and lumbar spine: radiographic-pathologic study of prevalence, characterization, and correlation with degenerative changes of 1,650 spinal levels in 100 cadavers. Radiology 219:368–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Praemer A, Furner S, Rice D (1992) Musculoskeletal conditions in the United States. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Park Ridge, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Resnick D (1985) Degenerative diseases of the vertebral column. Radiology 156:3-14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roberts S, Menage J, Urban JP (1989) Biochemical and structural properties of the cartilage end-plate and its relation to the intervertebral disc. Spine 14:166–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roberts S, Menage J, Eisenstein SM (1993) The cartilage end-plate and intervertebral disc in scoliosis: calcification and other sequelae. J Orthop Res 11:747–757PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roberts S, Urban JP, Evans H, Eisenstein SM (1996) Transport properties of the human cartilage endplate in relation to its composition and calcification. Spine 21:415–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roberts S, McCall IW, Menage J, Haddaway MJ, Eisenstein SM (1997) Does the thickness of the vertebral subchondral bone reflect the composition of the intervertebral disc? European Spine Journal 6:385–389PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salminen JJ, Erkintalo MO, Pentti J (1999) Recurrent low back pain and early disc degeneration in the young. Spine 24:1316–1321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Savage RA, Whitehouse GH, Roberts N (1997) The relationship between the magnetic resonance imaging appearance of the lumbar spine and low back pain, age and occupation in males. Eur Spine J 6:106–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sobel DF, Zyroff J, Thorne RP (1987) Diskogenic vertebral sclerosis: MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 11:855–858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tertti M, Paajanen H, Laato M, Aho H, Komu M, Kormanc M (1991) Disc degeneration in magnetic resonance imaging. A comparative biochemical, histologic, and radiologic study in cadaver spines. Spine 16:629–634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thompson JP, Pearce RH, Schechter MT, Adams ME, Tsang IK, Bishop PB (1990) Preliminary evaluation of a scheme for grading the gross morphology of the human intervertebral disc. Spine 15:411–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Viikari-Juntura E, Raininko R, Videman T, Porkka L (1989) Evaluation of cervical disc degeneration with ultralow field MRI and discography. An experimental study on cadavers. Spine 14:616–619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu SW, Sether LA, Ho PS, Wagner M, Haughton VM (1988) Tears of the annulus fibrosus: correlation between MR and pathologic findings in cadavers. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 9:367–370PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorin M. Benneker
    • 1
  • Paul F. Heini
    • 2
    Email author
  • Suzanne E. Anderson
    • 3
  • Mauro Alini
    • 1
  • Keita Ito
    • 1
  1. 1.AO Research InstituteDavosSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryInselspital, University of BerneBerneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyInselspital, University of BerneBerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations