| Literature DB >> 31200150 |
S W Hughes1, P J Hellyer2, D J Sharp3, R D Newbould4, M C Patel5, P H Strutton6.
Abstract
Age-related degenerative changes in the lumbar spine frequently result in nerve root compression causing severe pain and disability. Given the increasing incidence of lumbar spinal disorders in the aging population and the discrepancies between the use of current diagnostic imaging tools and clinical symptoms, novel methods of nerve root assessment are needed. We investigated elderly patients with stenosis at L4-L5 or L5-S1 levels. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was used to quantify microstructure in compressed L5 nerve roots and investigate relationships to clinical symptoms and motor neurophysiology. DTI metrics (i.e. FA, MD, AD and RD) were measured at proximal, mid and distal segments along compressed (i.e. L5) and intact (i.e. L4 or S1) nerve roots. FA was significantly reduced in compressed nerve roots and MD, AD and RD were significantly elevated in the most proximal segment of the nerve root studied. FA was significantly correlated with electrophysiological measures of root function: minimum F-wave latency and peripheral motor conduction time (PMCT). In addition, FA along the compressed root also correlated with leg pain and depression score. There was also a relationship between RD and anxiety, leg pain and disability score and AD correlated with depression score. Taken together, these data show that DTI metrics are sensitive to nerve root compression in patients with stenosis as a result of age-related lumbar degeneration. Critically, they show that the changes in microstructural integrity along compressed L5 nerve roots are closely related to a number of clinical symptoms associated with the development of chronic pain as well as neurophysiological assessments of motor function. These inherent relationships between nerve root damage and phenotype suggest that the use DTI is a promising method as a way to stratify treatment selection and predict outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Age; DTI; Entrapment; Neuropathic pain; Neurophysiology; Spinal nerve
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31200150 PMCID: PMC6562326 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101880
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1A) Schematic showing the affected (red L5) and unaffected (green L4 or S1) nerve roots B) Sagittal T2-weighted MRI showing left L5 nerve compression in the intervertebral foramen C) schematic showing region of interest (ROI) placement along an L5 nerve root with respect to distance below the L4-L5 disc. Note that ROIs are shown on coronal view for clarity of position along the nerve root.
Patient demographics and clinical details. F: female. M: male. VAS; visual analogue scale (0, no pain; 10, maximum pain). HADS: hospital anxiety depression scale (0, no depression; 21, maximum depression). ODI: Oswestry Low Back Disability Questionnaire (0, no disability; 100, maximum disability). RMDQ: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0, no disability; 24, maximum disability).
| ID | Age | Gender | Leg pain Symptoms | Pain duration | Average leg pain VAS | HADS depression | HADS anxiety | ODI (%) | RMDQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 66 | F | Ache | 1 year | 8.00 | 7 | 2 | 64 | 12 |
| 2 | 70 | F | Shooting | 1–4 years | 7.00 | 15 | 14 | 48 | 12 |
| 3 | 80 | F | Shooting | 1 year | 6.00 | 6 | 9 | 45 | 11 |
| 4 | 63 | F | Ache | 1–4 years | 6.67 | 7 | 7 | 24 | 13 |
| 5 | 72 | F | Sharp/shooting | 6 months | 5.67 | 5 | 9 | 53 | 18 |
| 6 | 74 | M | Shooting | >10 years | 5.33 | 10 | 11 | 48 | 18 |
| 7 | 63 | M | Sharp | 1–4 years | 8.00 | 9 | 11 | 54 | 16 |
| 8 | 57 | M | Shooting | 1–4 years | 6.67 | 3 | 2 | 22 | 8 |
| 9 | 68 | F | Stabbing/shooting | 1–4 years | 9.00 | 11 | 7 | 31.4 | 6 |
| 10 | 68 | F | Sharp | 5–10 years | 7.67 | 11 | 9 | 46.6 | 17 |
| 11 | 47 | M | Shooting | 5–10 years | 8.33 | 4 | 7 | 46 | 15 |
| 12 | 71 | M | Ache | 5–10 years | 7.00 | 5 | 2 | 28.8 | 12 |
| 13 | 77 | M | Ache, stabbing | 5–10 years | 10.00 | 10 | 12 | 60 | 23 |
| 14 | 53 | M | Sharp | 1–4 years | 4.33 | 8 | 4 | 17.5 | 9 |
| 15 | 68 | F | Ache | >10 years | 8.00 | 5 | 3 | 66.6 | 14 |
| 16 | 66 | F | Ache/sharp | 5–10 years | 8.50 | 15 | 19 | 62 | 18 |
| 17 | 53 | F | Ache | 1–4 years | 9.33 | 2 | 8 | 38 | 8 |
| 18 | 64 | F | Burning, sharp | 1 year | 7.67 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 7 |
| 19 | 58 | F | Ache | 5–10 years | 5.33 | 8 | 4 | 55.5 | 13 |
| 20 | 64 | M | Shooting | >10 years | 6.33 | 6 | 3 | 14 | 1 |
| Mean (SD) | 65.1 (8.3) | – | – | – | 7.2 (1.5) | 7.4 (3.8) | 7.3 (4.6) | 42.1 (16.9) | 12.6 (5.1) |
Fig. 2Altered microstructural integrity along compressed L5 nerve roots. A) Reduced FA in affected versus unaffected nerve roots. At the proximal end of the compressed nerve root there was an increased in B) MD C) AD and D) RD. Affected nerves = left or right L5 based on radiological confirmation; unaffected nerves = left or right L4 or S1 based on radiological confirmation. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM; 2-way RM ANOVA with Holm-Sidak multiple comparison post-hoc tests; *- p < 0.05; **- p < 0.01; ***- p < 0.001; N = 20.
Relationship between FA, MD, AD and RD and the battery of neurophysiological measures. Results from multiple linear regression analyses between the diffusion metrics across all ROIs and neurophysiological responses measured at the TA muscle. AD: mean diffusivity, CMCT: central motor conduction time, FA, fractional anisotropy, MD: mean diffusivity, MEP: motor evoked potential, PMCT: peripheral motor conduction time, RD: radial diffusivity, ROI: region of interest. N = 20. * = significant correlation following correction for multiple comparisons using false detection rate (FDR).
| Diffusion metric ROI | MEP amplitude | MEP latency | F-wave latency | PMCT | CMCT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA | |||||
| Proximal | r = 0.15 | r = −0.07 | r = −0.36 | r = −0.39 | r = 0.37 |
| p = 0.65 | p = 0.83 | p = 0.16 | p = 0.13 | p = 0.23 | |
| Mid | r = 0.41 | r = −0.14 | r = −0.55 | r = −0.54 | r = 0.52 |
| p = 0.90 | p = 0.96 | p = 0.02* | p = 0.03* | p = 0.09 | |
| Distal | r = 0.21 | r = −0.22 | r = 0.67 | r = −0.02 | r = −0.52 |
| p = 0.51 | p = 0.49 | p = 0.79 | p = 0.93 | p = 0.08 | |
| MD | |||||
| Proximal | r = −0.81 | r = 0.10 | r = 0.13 | r = 0.15 | r = −0.15 |
| p = 0.80 | p = 0.76 | p = 0.62 | p = 0.56 | p = 0.63 | |
| Mid | r = −0.10 | r = −0.13 | r = 0.47 | r = 0.35 | r = −0.46 |
| p = 0.075 | p = 0.70 | p = 0.06 | p = 0.17 | p = 0.13 | |
| Distal | r = −0.61 | r = 0.21 | r = −0.16 | r = 0.08 | r = 0.25 |
| p = 0.04 | p = 0.52 | p = 0.54 | p = 0.75 | p = 0.44 | |
| AD | |||||
| Proximal | r = −0.13 | r = 0.17 | r = −0.01 | r = 0.06 | r = 0.01 |
| p = 0.68 | p = 0.59 | p = 0.99 | p = 0.83 | p = 0.99 | |
| Mid | r = −0.20 | r = −0.03 | r = 0.45 | r = 0.35 | r = −0.37 |
| p = 0.53 | p = 0.92 | p = 0.07 | p = 0.17 | p = 0.23 | |
| Distal | r = −0.56 | r = 0.36 | r = −0.07 | r = 0.18 | r = 0.14 |
| p = 0.06 | p = 0.25 | p = 0.80 | p = 0.48 | p = 0.67 | |
| RD | |||||
| Proximal | r = −0.17 | r = 0.13 | r = 0.07 | r = 0.11 | r = −0.04 |
| p = 0.59 | p = 0.68 | p = 0.78 | p = 0.67 | p = 0.90 | |
| Mid | r = −0.33 | r = −0.02 | r = 0.28 | r = 0.19 | r = −0.01 |
| p = 0.30 | p = 0.96 | p = 0.28 | p = 0.46 | p = 0.97 | |
| Distal | r = 0.22 | r = 0.55 | r = −0.01 | r = 0.14 | r = 0.25 |
| p = 0.50 | p = 0.06 | p = 0.98 | p = 0.59 | p = 0.43 |
Fig. 3Relationship between fractional anisotropy (FA) of affected and unaffected nerve roots and neurophysiological measurements obtained from the tibialis anterior (TA). Partial regression plots showing A) FA measured at the mid-part of the nerve correlated with minimum F-wave latency and C) peripheral motor conduction time (PMCT) when measured from the affected but not the unaffected (B and D) nerve roots. N = 20.
Relationship between FA, MD, AD and RD and the battery of clinical questionnaires. Results from Pearson correlation coefficient analyses between the diffusion metrics across all ROIs and clinical scores. AD: mean diffusivity, CMCT: central motor conduction time, FA, fractional anisotropy, ODI: Oswestry Low Back Disability Questionnaire, MD: mean diffusivity, RD: radial diffusivity, RMDQ: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, ROI: region of interest, VAS: visual analogue score. N = 20. * = significant correlation following correction for multiple comparisons using false detection rate (FDR).
| Diffusion metric ROI | Anxiety | Depression | Average Leg Pain VAS | ODI | RMDQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA | |||||
| Proximal | r = −0.81 | r = −0.31 | r = 0.29 | r = 0.11 | r = −0.38 |
| p = 0.73 | p = 0.19 | p = 0.21 | p = 0.63 | p = 0.09 | |
| Mid | r = −0.31 | r = −0.66 | r = −0.05 | r = −0.15 | r = −0.27 |
| p = 0.19 | p = 0.01* | p = 0.84 | p = 0.52 | p = 0.25 | |
| Distal | r = 0.08 | r = 0.06 | r = −0.51 | r = −0.16 | r = −0.17 |
| p = 0.73 | p = 0.79 | p = 0.02* | p = 0.49 | p = 0.46 | |
| MD | |||||
| Proximal | r = 0.29 | r = 0.41 | r = 0.07 | r = −0.04 | r = 0.35 |
| p = 0.22 | p = 0.07 | p = 0.76 | p = 0.85 | p = 0.13 | |
| Mid | r = 0.13 | r = 0.35 | r = −0.98 | r = −0.06 | r = 0.20 |
| p = 0.58 | p = 0.12 | p = 0.68 | p = 0.81 | p = 0.41 | |
| Distal | r = 0.07 | r = −0.04 | r = 0.04 | r = −0.15 | r = −0.13 |
| p = 0.76 | p = 0.85 | p = 0.87 | p = 0.53 | p = 0.60 | |
| AD | |||||
| Proximal | r = 0.42 | r = 0.46 | r = 0.26 | r = −0.02 | r = 0.31 |
| p = 0.06 | p = 0.04 | p = 0.27 | p = 0.94 | p = 0.18 | |
| Mid | r = 0.11 | r = 0.25 | r = −0.04 | r = −0.19 | r = 0.09 |
| p = 0.65 | p = 0.30 | p = 0.87 | p = 0.42 | p = 0.68 | |
| Distal | r = 0.10 | r = −0.06 | r = −0.04 | r = −0.27 | r = −0.19 |
| p = 0.66 | p = 0.80 | p = 0.86 | p = 0.25 | p = 0.43 | |
| RD | |||||
| Proximal | r = 0.02 | r = 0.17 | r = −0.28 | r = −0.25 | r = 0.03 |
| p = 0.93 | p = 0.48 | p = 0.23 | p = 0.30 | p = 0.89 | |
| Mid | r = −0.09 | r = 0.06 | r = −0.12 | r = 0.01 | r = 0.04 |
| p = 0.67 | p = 0.79 | p = 0.96 | p = 0.97 | p = 0.86 | |
| Distal | r = 0.49 | r = 0.19 | r = 0.59 | r = 0.32 | r = 0.47 |
| p = 0.03* | p = 0.43 | p = 0.01* | p = 0.17 | p = 0.04* |
Fig. 4Relationship between fractional anisotropy (FA) measured along affected and unaffected nerve roots and chronic pain symptoms. A) FA measured from the mid-part of the affected nerve correlated with HADS depression score which was not seen for the unaffected nerve root (B). FA measured at a distal part of the compressed nerve correlated with self-rated average pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score (C) which was not seen for the unaffected nerve root (D). N = 20.