| Literature DB >> 35935310 |
Abstract
The aim of this study is to study the relationship between the degree of lumbar disc degeneration and the height of the disc in patients with pain in the lower back and determine whether there is a dose-response relationship between the two. Eighty-five patients were examined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The grade of lumbar degeneration was determined by the Pfirrmann grading system, and the intervertebral height and VAS pain scores were measured. The height difference of intervertebral discs with different degeneration levels was measured by the F test. This difference was correlated and further quantified by regression analysis. Finally, the differences intervertebral disc heights with a VAS score of 0-6 and 7-10 were observed by an independent sample t-test. The higher degree of disc degeneration in each lumbosacral segment, the lower the intervertebral disc height (p ≤ 0.011). When discs with grade 1 and grade 5 degeneration were excluded, the results remained the same (p ≤ 0.034). To quantify correlations, at each lumbar level, the disc height was reduced for each level of lumbosacral disc degeneration, and the height of disc was reduced after adjusting according to age, sex, and BMI (β range: -1.25 mm to -1.76 mm, 95% CI: -0.83 to -2.29, all p ≤ 0.002). Subjects with a VAS score of 7-10 had a lower intervertebral disc height than those with a VAS score of 0-6, especially with respect to total height levels at L4/5, L5/S1, and L1-S1 (p ≤ 0.04). This study showed a relationship between increased degree of intervertebral disc degeneration and decreased the disc height in patients with pain in the low back. Although the assessment of lumbar and lumbosacral level disc degeneration involves many qualitative measurements, these statistical data confirm the effectiveness of lumbosacral disc height as a continuous data measure and quantification in clinical trials and epidemiological studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35935310 PMCID: PMC9325564 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5960317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Pfirrmann grading of lumbar disc degeneration (2001) [10].
Basic demographic data of the subjects. These results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise stated.
| Characteristics | Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 49.7 ± 7.8 | ||||
|
| 53 (62.4) | ||||
|
| 28.5 ± 7.3 | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|
| |||||
| L1/2 | 1 (1.2) | 59 (69.4) | 20 (23.5) | 5 (5.9) | 0 (0) |
| L2/3 | 0 (0) | 47 (55.3) | 29 (34.1) | 8 (9.4) | 1 (1.2) |
| L3/4 | 0 (0) | 32 (37.6) | 43 (50.6) | 10 (11.8) | 0 (0) |
| L4/5 | 0 (0) | 14 (16.5) | 35 (41.2) | 35 (41.2) | 1 (1.2) |
| L5/S1 | 1 (1.2) | 25 (29.4) | 28 (32.9) | 24 (28.2) | 7 (8.2) |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| L1/2 | 9.7 ± 1.1 | ||||
| L2/3 | 10.8 ± 1.4 | ||||
| L3/4 | 11.6 ± 1.6 | ||||
| L4/5 | 11.3 ± 1.8 | ||||
| L5/S1 | 10.2 ± 2.2 | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| ≤3 | 13(15.3) | ||||
| 4–6 | 49(57.6) | ||||
| 7–10 | 23(27.1) | ||||
Figure 2Intervertebral disc height and Pfirrmann grading box diagram (L1/2, L2/3, L4/5, and L5/S1 intervertebral disc).
Intervertebral disc heights with different degeneration grades at each segment level (mean ± standard error).
| Intervertebral height of lumbosacral disc degeneration at different levels (in mm) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|
| |
| L1/2 | 12.51 ± 0.03 | 10.06 ± 0.4 | 8.74 ± 0.4 | 7.84 ± 0.4 | — | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| L2/3 | — | 11.65 ± 0.5 | 9.98 ± 0.3 | 8.78 ± 0.4 | 6.16 ± 0.02 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
| L3/4 | — | 12.99 ± 0.7 | 10.98 ± 0.5 | 9.92 ± 0.5 | — | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| L4/5 | — | 13.39 ± 1.0 | 11.74 ± 0.5 | 10.12 ± 0.6 | 5.56 ± 0.02 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| L5/S1 | 14.19 ± 0.04 | 11.79 ± 0.5 | 10.66 ± 0.6 | 9.26 ± 0.9 | 5.61 ± 0.8 | <0.001 | 0.004 |
P value is F test two-two comparison maximum Pa: Comparison of grades 1–5 disc heights; Pb: Comparison of grades 2–4 discs.
Relationships between the degree of lumbosacral disc degeneration (grade 2–4) and the intervertebral height (mm) of corresponding segments.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1/2 | −1.26(−1.56, −0.96) | <0.001 | −1.25(−1.67, −0.83) | <0.001 |
| L2/3 | −1.57(−1.84, −1.30) | <0.001 | −1.43(−1.82, −1.04) | <0.001 |
| L3/4 | −1.68(−2.07, −1.29) | <0.001 | −1.66(−2.24, −1.10) | 0.002 |
| L4/5 | −1.74(−2.12, −1.36) | <0.001 | −1.76(−2.29, −1.23) | 0.001 |
| L5/S1 | −1.69(−2.02, −1.37) | <0.001 | −1.61(−2.10, −1.12) | <0.001 |
β1: simple linear regression coefficient; β2: multiple linear regression coefficients after adjusting for age, sex, and BMI.
Comparison of the VAS score 0–6 and VAS score 7–10 of intervertebral disc height.
| VAS score 0–6 | VAS score 7–10 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1/2 | 9.8 | 9.2 | 0.19 |
| L2/3 | 11 | 10.1 | 0.09 |
| L3/4 | 11.9 | 10.8 | 0.07 |
| L4/5 | 11.7 | 10.1 | 0.01 |
| L5/S1 | 10.5 | 9.5 | 0.04 |
| Cumulative L1-S1 disc height | 54.9 | 49.7 | 0.03 |