Yiping Li1, Vance Fredrickson, Daniel K Resnick. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, K4/834 CSC, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792-0001, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MRI is the gold standard for evaluating the relationship of disc material to soft tissue and neural structures. However, terminologies used to describe lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression have always been a source of confusion. A clear understanding of lumbar disc terminology among clinicians, radiologists, and researchers is vital for patient care and future research. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Through a systematic review of the literature, the purpose of this article is to describe lumbar disc terminology and comment on the reliability of various nomenclature systems and their application to clinical practice. METHODS: PubMed was used for our literature search using the following MeSH headings: "Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Intervertebral Disc Displacement" and "Lumbar Vertebrae" and terms "nomenclature" or "grading" or "classification". Ten papers evaluating lumbar disc herniation/nerve root compression using different grading criteria and providing information regarding intraobserver and interobserver agreement were identified. RESULTS: To date, the Combined Task Force (CTF) and van Rijn classification systems are the most reliable methods for describing lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression, respectively. van Rijn dichotomized nerve roots from "definitely no root compression, possibly no root compression, indeterminate root compression, possible root compression, and definite root compression" into no root compression (first three categories) and root compression (last two categories). The CTF classification defines lumbar discs as normal, focal protrusion, broad-based protrusion, or extrusion. The CTF classification system excludes "disc bulges," which is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. This potentially accounts for its improved reliability compared with other proposed nomenclature systems. CONCLUSIONS: The main issue in the management of patients with lumbar disc disease and nerve root compression is correlation of imaging findings with clinical presentation and symptomatology to guide treatment and intervention. Although it appears that the most commonly supported nomenclatures have strong interobserver reliability, the classification term "disc bulges" is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. Additional research should focus on the clinical application of the various nomenclatures.
BACKGROUND: MRI is the gold standard for evaluating the relationship of disc material to soft tissue and neural structures. However, terminologies used to describe lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression have always been a source of confusion. A clear understanding of lumbar disc terminology among clinicians, radiologists, and researchers is vital for patient care and future research. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Through a systematic review of the literature, the purpose of this article is to describe lumbar disc terminology and comment on the reliability of various nomenclature systems and their application to clinical practice. METHODS: PubMed was used for our literature search using the following MeSH headings: "Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Intervertebral Disc Displacement" and "Lumbar Vertebrae" and terms "nomenclature" or "grading" or "classification". Ten papers evaluating lumbar disc herniation/nerve root compression using different grading criteria and providing information regarding intraobserver and interobserver agreement were identified. RESULTS: To date, the Combined Task Force (CTF) and van Rijn classification systems are the most reliable methods for describing lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression, respectively. van Rijn dichotomized nerve roots from "definitely no root compression, possibly no root compression, indeterminate root compression, possible root compression, and definite root compression" into no root compression (first three categories) and root compression (last two categories). The CTF classification defines lumbar discs as normal, focal protrusion, broad-based protrusion, or extrusion. The CTF classification system excludes "disc bulges," which is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. This potentially accounts for its improved reliability compared with other proposed nomenclature systems. CONCLUSIONS: The main issue in the management of patients with lumbar disc disease and nerve root compression is correlation of imaging findings with clinical presentation and symptomatology to guide treatment and intervention. Although it appears that the most commonly supported nomenclatures have strong interobserver reliability, the classification term "disc bulges" is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. Additional research should focus on the clinical application of the various nomenclatures.
Authors: Christian W A Pfirrmann; Claudio Dora; Marius R Schmid; Marco Zanetti; Juerg Hodler; Norbert Boos Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-12-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jeroen C van Rijn; Nina Klemetsö; Johannes B Reitsma; Charles B L M Majoie; Frans J Hulsmans; Wilco C Peul; Jan Stam; Patrick M Bossuyt; Gerard J den Heeten Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Eugene Carragee; John A Carrino; John Carrino; Jay Kaiser; Roberto T Blanco Sequeiros; Amy Rosen Lecomte; Margaret R Grove; Emily A Blood; Loretta H Pearson; Richard Herzog; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-04-20 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: T A Brennan; L L Leape; N M Laird; L Hebert; A R Localio; A G Lawthers; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kai-Uwe LewandrowskI; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2020-12
Authors: Alina Messner; David Stelzeneder; Stefan Trattnig; Götz H Welsch; Martina Schinhan; Sebastian Apprich; Martin Brix; Reinhard Windhager; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 3.134