Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of preoperative MRI findings on lumbar fusion clinical outcomes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Spinal fusion as a treatment for degenerative disc disease is controversial. Prior authors have identified various MRI findings as being pain generators, which might help guide patient selection for lumbar fusion procedures. These findings have included disc desiccation, disc contour, high-intensity zone annular disruption, the presence of Modic endplate changes, and disc space collapse. The purpose of this study is to investigate which MRI findings in patients with degenerative disc disease predict clinical improvement with lumbar fusion.

Methods

A single-center surgical database of patients undergoing lumbar fusion was reviewed for patients whose indication for fusion surgery was primary disc pathology. We identified 51 patients (71 disc levels) who had completed 2-year prospectively collected outcomes questionnaires and had preoperative MRIs available for review. NRS (0–10) back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-36 Physical Composite Summary scores were obtained preoperatively and at 1- and 2-year follow-up. MRIs were reviewed by three fellowship-trained spine surgeons who were asked to grade them for the following five characteristics: (a) disc desiccation, (b) disc contour, (c) presence of a high-intensity zone (HIZ) annular tear, (d) presence of Modic endplate changes and (e) disc height. Two-year outcome measures were compared to MRI findings to identify which findings correlated with improvement in outcome scores.

Results

Statistically significant improvements were noted in back pain, leg pain, SF-36 PCS and ODI in the group overall. Disc desiccation, disc contour, presence of an HIZ lesion, and the presence of Modic endplate changes did not correlate with 2-year outcomes. Disc height was correlated with 2-year change in outcome measures. Discs with preoperative height less than 5 mm demonstrated a 23.4 point ODI improvement compared to 9.2 points for discs >7 mm. Similarly, SF-36 PCS improved 9.5 points in discs <5 mm compared to 0.7 in discs greater than 7 mm. Discs between 5 and 7 mm demonstrated intermediate levels of improvement.

Conclusions

Several commonly utilized MRI criteria proposed as indications for lumbar fusion do not seem to correlate with 2-year improvement in clinical outcomes. Discs which are narrowed and collapsed, preoperatively, demonstrate better improvement at 2 years postoperatively as compared to discs which have maintained disc height. Significant disc space collapse may represent a subset of “degenerative disc disease” which responds more favorably to treatment with fusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albert HB, Manniche C (2007) Modic changes following lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J 16:977–982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aprill C, Bogduk N (1992) High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 65:361–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 72:403–408

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bram J, Zanetti M, Min K, Hodler J (1998) MR abnormalities of the intervertebral discs and adjacent bone marrow as predictors of segmental instability of the lumbar spine. Acta Radiol 39:18–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Buirski G, Silberstein M (1993) The symptomatic lumbar disc in patients with low back pain: magnetic resonance imaging appearances in both a symptomatic and control population. Spine 18:1808–1811

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Carragee EJ, Tanner CM, Khurana S, Hayward C, Welsh J, Date E, Truong T, Rossi M, Hagle C (2010) The rates of false-positive lumbar discography in select patients without low back symptoms. Spine 25:1373–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chataigner H, Onimus M, Polette A (1998) Surgery for degenerative lumbar disc disease: should the black disc be grafted? Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 84:583–589

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Claessens AA, Schouten JS, van den Ouweland FA, Valkenburg HA (1990) Do clinical findings associate with radiographic osteoarthritis of the knee? Ann Rheum Dis 49:771–774

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Colhoun E, McCall IW, Williams L, Cassar Pullicino VN et al (1998) Provocation discography as a guide in planning operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:267–271

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dahaghin S, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Ginai AZ, Pols HA, Hazes JM, Koes BW (2005) Prevalence and pattern of radiographic hand osteoarthritis and association with pain and disability (the Rotterdam study). Ann Rheum Dis 64:682–687

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. de Schepper EI, Damen J, van Meurs JB, Ginai AZ, Popham M, Hofman A, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM (2010) The association between lumbar disc degeneration and low back pain. The influence of age, gender and individual radiographic features. Spine 35:531–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG (2010) Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 303:1259–1265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turne JA, Martin BI (2009) Overtreating chronic back pain: time to back off? J Am Board Fam Med 22:62–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Esposito JL, Pinheiro-Franco S, Froelich D, Maitrot D (2006) Predictive value of MRI vertebral endplate signal changes (Modic) on outcome of surgically treated degenerative disc disease: results of a cohort study including 60 patients. Neurochirurgie 52:315–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fardon DF, Milette PCN (2001) Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine 26:E93–E113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Dimar JR, Johnson JR, Puno RM, Campbell MJ (2009) Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9:13–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Ekselius L, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group (2003) Predictors of outcome in fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. A report from the Swedish lumbar spine study. Eur Spine J 12:22–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 73:802–808

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Holt EP Jr (1968) The question of lumbar discography. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58A:720–726

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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. N Engl J Med 331:69–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM (1994) Correlates of improvement in multidisciplinary treatment of chronic pain. J Consult Clin Psychol 62:172–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kuisma M, Karppinen J, Niinimäki J, Ojala R, Haapea M, Heliövaara M, Korpelainen R, Taimela S, Natri A, Tervonen O (2007) Modic changes in endplates of lumbar vertebral bodies: prevalence and association with low back and sciatic pain among middle-aged male workers. Spine 32:1116–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Madan S, Gundanna M, Harley JM, Boeree NR, Sampson M (2002) Does provocative discography screening of discogenic back pain improve surgical outcome? J Spinal Disord Tech 15:245–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitra D, Cassar-Pullicino VN, McCall IW (2004) Longitudinal study of vertebral type 1 endplate changes on MR of the lumbar spine. Eur Radiol 14:1574–1581

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR (1988) Degenerative disc disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 166:193–199

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Modic MT (2007) Modic type 1 and type 2 changes. J Neurosurg Spine 6:150–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Powell MC, Wilson M, Szypryt P, Symonds EM, Worthington BS (1986) Prevalence of lumbar disc degeneration observed by magnetic resonance in symptomless women. Lancet 2:1366–1367

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rahme R, Moussa R (2008) The Modic vertebral endplate and marrow changes: Pathologic significance and relation to low back pain and segmental instability of the lumbar spine. Am J Neuroradiol 29:838–842

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schellhas KP, Pollei SR, Gundry CR, Heithoff KB (1996) Lumbar disc high-intensity zone: correlation of magnetic resonance imaging and discography. Spine 21:79–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Toyone T, Takahashi K, Kitahara H, Yamagata M, Murakami M, Moriya H (1994) Vertebral bone-marrow changes in degenerative lumbar disc disease: an MRI study of 74 patients with low back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:757–764

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SK (1994) SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user’s manual. The Health Institute, Boston

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

MD receives consulting fees from Medtronic. LYC receives research support from Norton Healthcare. CHC receives consulting fees from Medtronic and Alphatec and is on the Speaker's bureau for Synthes. SDG receives royalties from Medtronic and research support from Norton Healthcare. MD, LYC, CHC, KRB and SDG are employees of Norton Healthcare. JDZ has nothing to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray Street, Suite 900, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    Mladen Djurasovic, Leah Y. Carreon, Charles H. Crawford III, Jason D. Zook, Kelly R. Bratcher & Steven D. Glassman

Authors
  1. Mladen Djurasovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leah Y. Carreon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles H. Crawford III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jason D. Zook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kelly R. Bratcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Steven D. Glassman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leah Y. Carreon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Djurasovic, M., Carreon, L.Y., Crawford III, C.H. et al. The influence of preoperative MRI findings on lumbar fusion clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 21, 1616–1623 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2244-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2244-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation