Literature DB >> 22498993

Lumbar modic changes-a comparison between findings at low- and high-field magnetic resonance imaging.

Tom Bendix1, Joan S Sorensen, Gustaf A C Henriksson, Jørn Espen Bolstad, Eva K Narvestad, Tue S Jensen.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational study.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is a difference in findings of lumbar Modic changes in low-field (0.3 T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with high-field (1.5 T). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It is a challenge to give patients with low back pain a specific diagnosis. Modic changes as seen on MRI have been reported to be a possible source of pain. However, it is unclear whether the diagnosis is independent on the field strength.
METHODS: Twenty patients with Modic changes, 11 women and 9 men (mean age, 53.6 yr; range, 29-81 yr), with or without sciatica, seen in a Danish outpatient low back pain clinic were included. All patients obtained MRI scans on both a high-field and a low-field MRI scanner. Two radiologists evaluated all lumbar endplates independently, using a standardized evaluation protocol. Kappa statistics were used to analyze the interobserver reproducibility. We used paired t test to analyze the difference between low- and high-field MRI.
RESULTS: The total number of Modic changes diagnosed with high-field MRI was significantly higher than that with low-field MRI. However, 3 to 4 times as many Modic type 1 changes were found with low-field MRI compared with high-field MRI. Contrarily, with high-field MRI type 2 changes were diagnosed twice as often.
CONCLUSION: There was a significant difference between low- and high-field MRI regarding the overall prevalence of any Modic change, but this had opposite directions for types 1 and 2: type 2 dominated in high field and conversely in high field [corrected]. The type of MRI unit should be taken into consideration when diagnosing patients with Modic changes

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22498993     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318257ffce

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  22 in total

Review 1.  Pathobiology of Modic changes.

Authors:  Stefan Dudli; Aaron J Fields; Dino Samartzis; Jaro Karppinen; Jeffrey C Lotz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Correlation between biomechanical properties of the annulus fibrosus and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings.

Authors:  Zhi Shan; Shengyun Li; Junhui Liu; Maiwulanjiang Mamuti; Chongyan Wang; Fengdong Zhao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The location of Modic changes in the lumbar spine: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhe-Yu Huang; Hai-Chao Xu; Tao Lei; Qing-Long Li; Ai-Min Wu; Wen-Fei Ni
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Serum biomarkers for Modic changes in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Jaro Karppinen; Katri Koivisto; Jukka Ketola; Marianne Haapea; Markus Paananen; Karl-Heinz Herzig; Mauro Alini; Jeffrey Lotz; Stefan Dudli; Dino Samartzis; Juha Risteli; Marja-Leena Majuri; Harri Alenius; Eero Kyllönen; Jyri Järvinen; Jaakko Niinimäki; Sibylle Grad
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Correlation Between Modic Changes and Bacterial Infection: A Causative Study.

Authors:  Saurabh Singh; G I Siddhlingeswara; Alok Rai; R Dinesh Iyer; Divyansh Sharma; Rishabh Surana
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10

6.  The association between Modic changes and pain during 1-year follow-up in patients with lumbar radicular pain.

Authors:  Elina Iordanova Schistad; Ansgar Espeland; Lars Jørgen Rygh; Cecilie Røe; Johannes Gjerstad
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 7.  Do MRI findings identify patients with low back pain or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions? A systematic review.

Authors:  Daniel Steffens; Mark J Hancock; Leani S M Pereira; Peter M Kent; Jane Latimer; Chris G Maher
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study.

Authors:  Glenn R Buttermann; Tague M Thorson; William J Mullin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Novel diagnostic and prognostic methods for disc degeneration and low back pain.

Authors:  Dino Samartzis; Ari Borthakur; Inna Belfer; Cora Bow; Jeffrey C Lotz; Hai-Qiang Wang; Kenneth M C Cheung; Eugene Carragee; Jaro Karppinen
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Do more MRI findings imply worse disability or more intense low back pain? A cross-sectional study of candidates for lumbar disc prosthesis.

Authors:  Linda Berg; Christian Hellum; Øivind Gjertsen; Gesche Neckelmann; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Kjersti Storheim; Jens Ivar Brox; Geir Egil Eide; Ansgar Espeland
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.