Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 626–631 | Cite as

Rehydration of a degenerated disc on MRI synchronized with transition of Modic changes following stand-alone XLIF

  • Kenichiro Kita
  • Toshinori Sakai
  • Mitsunobu Abe
  • Yoichiro Takata
  • Koichi Sairyo
Grand Rounds

Abstract

Open image in new window Lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration (LDD) is known to be associated with low back pain (LBP) and leads to degenerative lumbar disease. LDD is considered to be irreversible, and no truly effective treatment that suppresses LDD or regenerates the degenerated disc has been established thus far. Here, we report the case of a 42-year-old woman with a 10-year history of persistent LBP. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated degenerative changes (Pfirrmann classification: grade IV) in the L4–5 intervertebral disc with type I and III mixed Modic changes adjacent to the disc. Conservative treatments were not effective, so we opted for stand-alone extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). One year after the operation, the LBP had almost disappeared. Follow-up MRI revealed transition of the Modic changes from type I to type III. In addition, rehydration of the degenerated disc behind the XLIF cage was evident (Pfirrmann classification changed from grade IV to grade II). To our knowledge, this is the first report of a change in LDD. Several factors are likely responsible for the regenerative response, including curettage of the hyaline cartilaginous endplates and auto-iliac cancellous bone grafting, which were considered to have affected nucleus pulposus cells in the residual disc.

Keywords

Lumbar disc degeneration Rehydration Stand-alone XLIF Modic change 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Luoma K, Riihimäki H, Luukkonen R, Raininko R, Viikari-Juntura E, Lamminen A (2000) Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine 25:487–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rim DC (2016) Quantitative Pfirrmann disc degeneration grading system to overcome the limitation of Pfirrmann disc degeneration grade. Korean J Spine 13:1–8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sakai D, Mochida J, Iwashina T, Hiyama A, Omi H, Imai M, Nakai T, Ando K, Hotta T (2006) Regenerative effects of transplanting mesenchymal stem cells embedded in atelocollagen to the degenerated intervertebral disc. Biomaterials 27:335–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang WJ, Yu XH, Wang C, Yang W, He WS, Zhang SJ, Yan YG, Zhang J (2015) MMPs and ADAMTSs in intervertebral disc degeneration. Clin Chim Acta 448:238–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang W, Yu XH, Wang C, He WS, Zhang SJ, Yan YG, Zhang J, Xiang YX, Wang WJ (2015) Interleukin-1β in intervertebral disk degeneration. Clin Chim Acta 450:262–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berjano P, Lamartina C (2013) Far lateral approaches (XLIF) in adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22:S242–S253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miyazaki M, Hong SW, Yoon SH, Morishita Y, Wang JC (2008) Reliability of a magnetic resonance imaging-based grading system for cervical intervertebral disc degeneration. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:288–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jiang YQ, Che W, Wang HR, Li RY, Li XL, Dong J (2015) Minimum 5 year follow-up of multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease treated with discectomy and the Wallis interspinous device. J Clin Neurosci 22:1144–1149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR (1988) Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MRI imaging. Radiology 166:193–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerttula L, Luoma K, Vehmas T, Grönblad M, Kääpä E (2012) Modic type I change may predict rapid progressive, deforming disc degeneration: a prospective 1-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 21:1135–1142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zehra U, Robson-Brown K, Adams MA, Dolan P (2015) Porosity and thickness of the vertebral endplate depend on local mechanical loading. Spine 40:1173–1180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leung VY, Chan D, Cheung KM (2006) Regeneration of intervertebral disc by mesenchymal stem cells: potentials, limitations, and future direction. Eur Spine J 15:S406–S413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sakai D (2008) Future perspectives of cell-based therapy for intervertebral disc disease. Eur Spine J 17:S452–S458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yim RL, Lee JT, Bow CH, Meij B, Leung V, Cheung KM, Vavken P, Samartzis D (2014) A systematic review of the safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for disc degeneration: insights and future directions for regenerative therapeutics. Stem Cells Dev 23:2553–2567CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics, Institute of Biomedical SciencesTokushima University Graduate SchoolTokushimaJapan

Personalised recommendations