STUDY DESIGN: This human cadaveric study evaluated disc degeneration of the lumbar spine using magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a correlation exists between magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry in determining disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies analyzing disc degeneration of the lumbar spine have compared magnetic resonance imaging with discography and discomanometry. The reported results are conflicting. No studies exist that compare magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry in assessing the disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. METHODS: Three fresh human cadaveric thoracolumbar spine specimens (two T11-S1 and one L1-S1) that included a total of 19 discs were used. Spines were scanned with magnetic resonance imaging, and the scans were read by a neuroradiologist. Using the quantitative discomanometry technique, discs were injected with normal saline, and pressure-volume curves were collected and quantified with six parameters: intrinsic pressure, leakage pressure, initial slope, slope from 0.0 to 0.1 mL, maximum pressure, and volume at maximum pressure. Data analysis was performed using Spearman's Rank Correlation (Rho) statistic. RESULTS: Based on the results from 19 discs, an overall good correlation between magnetic resonance imaging scores and the six quantitative discomanometry parameters was demonstrated. With exception of the volume at maximum pressure, correlation coefficients ranged between 0.61 to 0.78 with a P < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging scores and quantitative discomanometry parameters correlated well in the assessment of disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. Quantitative discomanometry may be an important technique for evaluating early disc degeneration, especially tears of the anular fibers, which may be missed on magnetic resonance imaging.
STUDY DESIGN: This human cadaveric study evaluated disc degeneration of the lumbar spine using magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a correlation exists between magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry in determining disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies analyzing disc degeneration of the lumbar spine have compared magnetic resonance imaging with discography and discomanometry. The reported results are conflicting. No studies exist that compare magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry in assessing the disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. METHODS: Three fresh human cadaveric thoracolumbar spine specimens (two T11-S1 and one L1-S1) that included a total of 19 discs were used. Spines were scanned with magnetic resonance imaging, and the scans were read by a neuroradiologist. Using the quantitative discomanometry technique, discs were injected with normal saline, and pressure-volume curves were collected and quantified with six parameters: intrinsic pressure, leakage pressure, initial slope, slope from 0.0 to 0.1 mL, maximum pressure, and volume at maximum pressure. Data analysis was performed using Spearman's Rank Correlation (Rho) statistic. RESULTS: Based on the results from 19 discs, an overall good correlation between magnetic resonance imaging scores and the six quantitative discomanometry parameters was demonstrated. With exception of the volume at maximum pressure, correlation coefficients ranged between 0.61 to 0.78 with a P < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging scores and quantitative discomanometry parameters correlated well in the assessment of disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. Quantitative discomanometry may be an important technique for evaluating early disc degeneration, especially tears of the anular fibers, which may be missed on magnetic resonance imaging.
Authors: Aysha N Khan; Hayley E Jacobsen; Jansher Khan; Christopher G Filippi; Mitchell Levine; Ronald A Lehman; K Daniel Riew; Lawrence G Lenke; Nadeen O Chahine Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 5.691