Paul W Hodges1, Jeannie F Bailey2, Maryse Fortin3, Michele C Battié4. 1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia. p.hodges@uq.edu.au. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Health, Kinesiology & Applied Physiology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences and Western's Bone and Joint Institute, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Paraspinal muscle imaging is of growing interest related to improved phenotyping, prognosis, and treatment of common spinal disorders. We reviewed issues related to paraspinal muscle imaging measurement that contribute to inconsistent findings between studies and impede understanding. METHODS: Three key contributors to inconsistencies among studies of paraspinal muscle imaging measurements were reviewed: failure to consider possible mechanisms underlying changes in paraspinal muscles, lack of control of confounding factors, and variations in spinal muscle imaging modalities and measurement protocols. Recommendations are provided to address these issues to improve the quality and coherence of future research. RESULTS: Possible pathophysiological responses of paraspinal muscle to various common spinal disorders in acute or chronic phases are often overlooked, yet have important implications for the timing, distribution, and nature of changes in paraspinal muscle. These considerations, as well as adjustment for possible confounding factors, such as sex, age, and physical activity must be considered when planning and interpreting paraspinal muscle measurements in studies of spinal conditions. Adoption of standardised imaging measurement protocols for paraspinal muscle morphology and composition, considering the strengths and limitations of various imaging modalities, is critically important to interpretation and synthesis of research. CONCLUSION: Study designs that consider physiological and pathophysiological responses of muscle, adjust for possible confounding factors, and use common, standardised measures are needed to advance knowledge of the determinants of variations or changes in paraspinal muscle and their influence on spinal health.
PURPOSE: Paraspinal muscle imaging is of growing interest related to improved phenotyping, prognosis, and treatment of common spinal disorders. We reviewed issues related to paraspinal muscle imaging measurement that contribute to inconsistent findings between studies and impede understanding. METHODS: Three key contributors to inconsistencies among studies of paraspinal muscle imaging measurements were reviewed: failure to consider possible mechanisms underlying changes in paraspinal muscles, lack of control of confounding factors, and variations in spinal muscle imaging modalities and measurement protocols. Recommendations are provided to address these issues to improve the quality and coherence of future research. RESULTS: Possible pathophysiological responses of paraspinal muscle to various common spinal disorders in acute or chronic phases are often overlooked, yet have important implications for the timing, distribution, and nature of changes in paraspinal muscle. These considerations, as well as adjustment for possible confounding factors, such as sex, age, and physical activity must be considered when planning and interpreting paraspinal muscle measurements in studies of spinal conditions. Adoption of standardised imaging measurement protocols for paraspinal muscle morphology and composition, considering the strengths and limitations of various imaging modalities, is critically important to interpretation and synthesis of research. CONCLUSION: Study designs that consider physiological and pathophysiological responses of muscle, adjust for possible confounding factors, and use common, standardised measures are needed to advance knowledge of the determinants of variations or changes in paraspinal muscle and their influence on spinal health.
Authors: Rebecca J Crawford; Thomas Volken; Áine Ni Mhuiris; Cora C Bow; James M Elliott; Mark A Hoggarth; Dino Samartzis Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Tom A Ranger; Flavia M Cicuttini; Tue S Jensen; Waruna L Peiris; Sultana Monira Hussain; Jessica Fairley; Donna M Urquhart Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Andrew J Haig; Henry C Tong; Karen S J Yamakawa; Douglas J Quint; Julian T Hoff; Anthony Chiodo; Jennifer A Miner; Vaishali R Choksi; Michael E Geisser Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jeffrey R Cooley; Bruce F Walker; Emad M Ardakani; Per Kjaer; Tue S Jensen; Jeffrey J Hebert Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Karim Khattab; Lucas K Dziesinski; Rebecca Crawford; Alex Ballatori; Priya Nyayapati; Roland Krug; Aaron Fields; Conor W O'Neill; Jeffrey C Lotz; Jeannie F Bailey Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Hasan Banitalebi; Jørn Aaen; Kjersti Storheim; Anne Negård; Tor Åge Myklebust; Margreth Grotle; Christian Hellum; Ansgar Espeland; Masoud Anvar; Kari Indrekvam; Clemens Weber; Jens Ivar Brox; Helena Brisby; Erland Hermansen Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2022-07-20
Authors: Krishnan Chakravarthy; David Lee; Jennifer Tram; Samir Sheth; Robert Heros; Smith Manion; Vikas Patel; Kyle Kiesel; Yousef Ghandour; Christopher Gilligan Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 2.832
Authors: Nico Sollmann; Noah B Bonnheim; Gabby B Joseph; Ravi Chachad; Jiamin Zhou; Zehra Akkaya; Amir M Pirmoazen; Jeannie F Bailey; Xiaojie Guo; Ann A Lazar; Thomas M Link; Aaron J Fields; Roland Krug Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Abel Torres-Espin; Anastasia Keller; Gabriel T A Johnson; Aaron J Fields; Roland Krug; Adam R Ferguson; Alan R Hargens; Conor W O'Neill; Jeffrey C Lotz; Jeannie F Bailey Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 2.721