Advertisement

Axial loading during MRI reveals deviant characteristics within posterior IVD regions between low back pain patients and controls

  • H. Hebelka
  • L. Torén
  • K. Lagerstrand
  • H. Brisby
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate differences in functional intervertebral disk (IVD) characteristics between low back pain (LBP) patients and controls using T2-mapping with axial loading during MRI (alMRI).

Methods

In total, 120 IVDs in 24 LBP patients (mean age 39 years, range 25–69) were examined with T2-mapping without loading of the spine (uMRI) and with alMRI (DynaWell® loading device) and compared with 60 IVDs in 12 controls (mean age 38 years, range 25–63). The IVD T2-value was acquired after 20-min loading in five regions of interests (ROI), ROI1-5 from anterior to posterior. T2-values were compared between loading states and cohorts with adjustment for Pfirrmann grade.

Results

In LBP patients, mean T2-value of the entire IVD was 64 ms for uMRI and 66 ms for alMRI (p = 0.03) and, in controls, 65 ms and 65 ms (p = 0.5). Load-induced T2-differences (alMRI–uMRI) were seen in all ROIs in both patients (0.001 > p < 0.005) and controls (0.0001 > p < 0.03). In patients, alMRI induced an increase in T2-value for ROI1-3 (23%, 18% and 5%) and a decrease for ROI4 (3%) and ROI5 (24%). More pronounced load-induced decrease was detected in ROI4 in controls (9%/p = 0.03), while a higher absolute T2-value was found for ROI5 during alMRI in patients (38 ms) compared to controls (33 ms) (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

The alMRI-induced differences in T2-value in ROI4 and ROI5 between patients and controls most probably indicate biomechanical impairment in the posterior IVD regions. Hence, alMRI combined with T2-mapping offers an objective and clinical feasible tool for biomechanical IVD characterization that may deepen the knowledge regarding how LBP is related to altered IVD matrix composition.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Intervertebral disk T2-mapping Low back pain MRI Axial loading during MRI 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support from C4I center, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Konrad Helfrid Johansson’s Foundation, Felix Neubergh Foundation, ALF Grant Västra Götaland Region and Grant AFA Insurance Company.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Oral and written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5774_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (237 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 236 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Iatridis JC, Nicoll SB, Michalek AJ, Walter BA, Gupta MS (2013) Role of biomechanics in intervertebral disc degeneration and regenerative therapies: what needs repairing in the disc and what are promising biomaterials for its repair? Spine J 13(3):243–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jarvik JG, Deyo RA (2002) Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. Ann Intern Med 137(7):586–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belavý DL, Quittner MJ, Ridgers N, Ling Y, Connell D, Rantalainen T (2017) Running exercise strengthens the intervertebral disc. Sci Rep 7:45975CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iatridis JC, Kang J, Kandel R, Risbud MV (2017) New horizons in spine research: intervertebral disc repair and regeneration. J Orthop Res 35(1):5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellingson AM, Mehta H, Polly Jr DW, Ellermann J, Nuckley DJ (2013) Disc degeneration assessed by quantitative T2*(T2 star) correlated with functional lumbar mechanics. Spine 38(24):E1533–E1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiu EJ, Newitt DC, Segal MR, Hu SS, Lotz JC, Majumdar S (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging measurement of relaxation and water diffusion in the human lumbar intervertebral disc under compression in vitro. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(19):E437–E444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antoniou J, Epure LM, Michalek AJ, Grant MP, Iatridis JC, Mwale F (2013) Analysis of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and biomechanical parameters on human discs with different grades of degeneration. J Magn Reson Imaging 38(6):1402–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mwale F, Demers CN, Michalek AJ, Beaudoin G, Goswami T, Beckman L, Iatridis JC, Antoniou J (2008) Evaluation of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging, biochemical and mechanical properties of trypsin-treated intervertebral discs under physiological compression loading. J Magn Reson Imaging 27(3):563–573.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21242 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mwale F, Iatridis JC, Antoniou J (2008) Quantitative MRI as a diagnostic tool of intervertebral disc matrix composition and integrity. Eur Spine J 17(4):432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nilsson M, Lagerstrand K, Kasperska I, Brisby H, Hebelka H (2016) Axial loading during MRI influences T2-mapping values of lumbar discs: a feasibility study on patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 25(9):2856–2863.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4670-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Messner A, Stelzeneder D, Trattnig S, Welsch GH, Schinhan M, Apprich S, Brix M, Windhager R, Trattnig S (2017) Does T2 mapping of the posterior annulus fibrosus indicate the presence of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation? A 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance study. Eur Spine J 26(3):877–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torén L, Hebelka H, Kasperska I, Brisby H, Lagerstrand K (2018) With axial loading during MRI diurnal T2-value changes in lumbar discs are neglectable: a cross sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19(1):25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malko JA, Hutton WC, Fajman WA (1999) An in vivo magnetic resonance imaging study of changes in the volume (and fluid content) of the lumbar intervertebral discs during a simulated diurnal load cycle. Spine 24(10):1015–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdollah V (2017) The effects of axial loading on the disc and motion segments relative to disc degeneration and pain using novel MRI biomarkers. University of Alberta. https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/cnz805z93w/Abdollah_Vahid_201701_PhD.pdf
  15. 15.
    Stelzeneder D, Kovacs BK, Goed S, Welsch GH, Hirschfeld C, Paternostro-Sluga T, Friedrich KM, Mamisch TC, Trattnig S (2012) Effect of short-term unloading on T2 relaxation time in the lumbar intervertebral disc—in vivo magnetic resonance imaging study at 3.0 tesla. Spine J 12(3):257–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.001 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chokan K, Murakami H, Endo H, Mimata Y, Yamabe D, Tsukimura I, Oikawa R, Doita M (2016) Evaluation of water retention in lumbar intervertebral disks before and after exercise stress with T2 mapping. Spine 41(7):E430–E436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yamabe D, Murakami H, Chokan K, Endo H, Oikawa R, Sawamura S, Doita M (2017) Evaluation of water content in lumbar intervertebral discs and facet joints before and after physiological loading using T2 mapping MRI. Spine 42(24):E1423–E1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nazari J, Pope MH, Graveling RA (2015) Feasibility of Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in obtaining nucleus pulposus (NP) water content with changing postures. Magn Reson Imaging 33(4):459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Willen J, Danielson B (2001) The diagnostic effect from axial loading of the lumbar spine during computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with degenerative disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(23):2607–2614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Danielson BI, Willen J, Gaulitz A, Niklason T, Hansson T (1998) Axial loading of the spine during CT and MR in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Radiol 39(6):604–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(17):1873–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aprill C, Bogduk N (1992) High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br JRadiol 65(773):361–369Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee S-H, Derby R, Chen Y, Seo KS, Kim MJ (2004) In vitro measurement of pressure in intervertebral discs and annulus fibrosus with and without annular tears during discography. Spine J 4(6):614–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maquer G, Brandejsky V, Benneker LM, Watanabe A, Vermathen P, Zysset PK (2014) Human intervertebral disc stiffness correlates better with the Otsu threshold computed from axial T2 map of its posterior annulus fibrosus than with clinical classifications. Med Eng Phys 36(2):219–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Trattnig S, Stelzeneder D, Goed S, Reissegger M, Mamisch TC, Paternostro-Sluga T, Weber M, Szomolanyi P, Welsch GH (2010) Lumbar intervertebral disc abnormalities: comparison of quantitative T2 mapping with conventional MR at 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 20(11):2715–2722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ogon I, Takebayashi T, Takashima H, Tanimoto K, Ida K, Yoshimoto M, Fujiwara H, Kubo T, Yamashita T (2015) Analysis of chronic low back pain with magnetic resonance imaging T2 mapping of lumbar intervertebral disc. J Orthop Sci 20(2):295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Passias PG, Wang S, Kozanek M, Xia Q, Li W, Grottkau B, Wood KB, Li G (2011) Segmental lumbar rotation in patients with discogenic low back pain during functional weight-bearing activities. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93(1):29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mok GS, Zhang D, Chen S-Z, Yuan J, Griffith JF, Wang YXJ (2016) Comparison of three approaches for defining nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus on sagittal magnetic resonance images of the lumbar spine. J Orthop Transl 6:34–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsSahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of Medical Physics and TechniquesSahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska AcademyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations