Literature DB >> 25430861

Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations.

W Brinjikji1, P H Luetmer2, B Comstock3, B W Bresnahan4, L E Chen4, R A Deyo5, S Halabi6, J A Turner7, A L Avins8, K James4, J T Wald1, D F Kallmes1, J G Jarvik9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Degenerative changes are commonly found in spine imaging but often occur in pain-free individuals as well as those with back pain. We sought to estimate the prevalence, by age, of common degenerative spine conditions by performing a systematic review studying the prevalence of spine degeneration on imaging in asymptomatic individuals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of articles reporting the prevalence of imaging findings (CT or MR imaging) in asymptomatic individuals from published English literature through April 2014. Two reviewers evaluated each manuscript. We selected age groupings by decade (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years), determining age-specific prevalence estimates. For each imaging finding, we fit a generalized linear mixed-effects model for the age-specific prevalence estimate clustering in the study, adjusting for the midpoint of the reported age interval.
RESULTS: Thirty-three articles reporting imaging findings for 3110 asymptomatic individuals met our study inclusion criteria. The prevalence of disk degeneration in asymptomatic individuals increased from 37% of 20-year-old individuals to 96% of 80-year-old individuals. Disk bulge prevalence increased from 30% of those 20 years of age to 84% of those 80 years of age. Disk protrusion prevalence increased from 29% of those 20 years of age to 43% of those 80 years of age. The prevalence of annular fissure increased from 19% of those 20 years of age to 29% of those 80 years of age.
CONCLUSIONS: Imaging findings of spine degeneration are present in high proportions of asymptomatic individuals, increasing with age. Many imaging-based degenerative features are likely part of normal aging and unassociated with pain. These imaging findings must be interpreted in the context of the patient's clinical condition.
© 2015 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25430861      PMCID: PMC4464797          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4173

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  53 in total

Review 1.  Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences.

Authors:  A Thornton; P Lee
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  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.

Authors:  D F Fardon; P C Milette
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  MRI evaluation of lumbar spine flexion and extension in asymptomatic individuals.

Authors:  S J Edmondston; S Song; R V Bricknell; P A Davies; K Fersum; P Humphries; D Wickenden; K P Singer
Journal:  Man Ther       Date:  2000-08

4.  Axially loaded magnetic resonance image of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic individuals.

Authors:  B Danielson; J Willén
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic professional fast bowlers in cricket.

Authors:  C A Ranson; R W Kerslake; A F Burnett; M E Batt; S Abdi
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-08

6.  The Longitudinal Assessment of Imaging and Disability of the Back (LAIDBack) Study: baseline data.

Authors:  J J Jarvik; W Hollingworth; P Heagerty; D R Haynor; R A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Magnetic resonance imaging predictors of surgical outcome in patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.

Authors:  Jon D Lurie; Rachel A Moses; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Eugene J Carragee; John A Carrino; Jay A Kaiser; Richard J Herzog
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Disc degeneration and chronic low back pain: an association which becomes nonsignificant when endplate changes and disc contour are taken into account.

Authors:  Francisco M Kovacs; Estanislao Arana; Ana Royuela; Ana Estremera; Guillermo Amengual; Beatriz Asenjo; Helena Sarasíbar; Isabel Galarraga; Ana Alonso; Carlos Casillas; Alfonso Muriel; Carmen Martínez; Víctor Abraira
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 2.804

9.  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

Review 10.  Does magnetic resonance imaging predict future low back pain? A systematic review.

Authors:  D Steffens; M J Hancock; C G Maher; C Williams; T S Jensen; J Latimer
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 3.931

View more
  173 in total

Review 1.  Advancing imaging technologies for patients with spinal pain: with a focus on whiplash injury.

Authors:  James M Elliott; Mark J Hancock; Rebecca J Crawford; Andrew C Smith; David M Walton
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 4.166

2.  Prospective Comparison of Changes in Lumbar Spine MRI Findings over Time between Individuals with Acute Low Back Pain and Controls: An Exploratory Study.

Authors:  J Panagopoulos; J S Magnussen; J Hush; C G Maher; M Crites-Battie; J G Jarvik; T S Jensen; M J Hancock
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Can Parsimonious Practice Please Patients and Practitioners? The Case of Spine Imaging.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work.

Authors:  G P G Lemmers; W van Lankveld; G P Westert; P J van der Wees; J B Staal
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Systematic review of radiological cervical foraminal grading systems.

Authors:  James Meacock; Moritz Schramm; Senthil Selvanathan; Stuart Currie; Deborah Stocken; David Jayne; Simon Thomson
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Rate of radiographic hip OA in spine patients: utility of including femoral heads on plain film A/P lumbar radiographs.

Authors:  Brian M Curtin; Casey Davidson; Susan Odum; Leo Spector
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-11-10

7.  Association between lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and spinal pathologies based on T2 whole-spine sagittal magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Oded Rabau; Yossi Smorgick; Sigal Tal; Eran Tamir; Michael Levshin; Yigal Mirovsky; Yoram Anekstein
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2021-05-30       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Change in fatty infiltration of lumbar multifidus, erector spinae, and psoas muscles in asymptomatic adults of Asian or Caucasian ethnicities.

Authors:  Rebecca J Crawford; James M Elliott; Thomas Volken
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain.

Authors:  Megan A Manning; G Michael Allan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.275

10.  [18F]-Sodium Fluoride PET MR-Based Localization and Quantification of Bone Turnover as a Biomarker for Facet Joint-Induced Disability.

Authors:  N W Jenkins; J F Talbott; V Shah; P Pandit; Y Seo; W P Dillon; S Majumdar
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.