Patterns of lumbar disc degeneration are different in degenerative disc disease and disc prolapse magnetic resonance imaging analysis of 224 patients

Abstract Background context Existing research on lumbar disc degeneration has remained inconclusive regarding its etiology, pathogenesis, symptomatology, prevention, and management. Degenerative disc disease (DDD) and disc prolapse (DP) are common diseases affecting the lumbar discs. Although they m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The spine journal 2014-02, Vol.14 (2), p.300-307
Hauptverfasser: Kanna, Rishi M., MS, MRCS, FNB, Shetty, Ajoy Prasad, MS, DNB, Rajasekaran, S., MS, MCh, FRCS(Ed), FRCS(London), FACS, PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background context Existing research on lumbar disc degeneration has remained inconclusive regarding its etiology, pathogenesis, symptomatology, prevention, and management. Degenerative disc disease (DDD) and disc prolapse (DP) are common diseases affecting the lumbar discs. Although they manifest clinically differently, existing studies on disc degeneration have included patients with both these features, leading to wide variations in observations. The possible relationship or disaffect between DDD and DP is not fully evaluated. Purpose To analyze the patterns of lumbar disc degeneration in patients with chronic back pain and DDD and those with acute DP. Study design Prospective, magnetic resonance imaging–based radiological study. Methods Two groups of patients (aged 20–50 years) were prospectively studied. Group 1 included patients requiring a single level microdiscectomy for acute DP. Group 2 included patients with chronic low back pain and DDD. Discs were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging through Pfirmann grading, Schmorl nodes, Modic changes, and the total end-plate damage score for all the five lumbar discs. Results Group 1 (DP) had 91 patients and group 2 (DDD) had 133 patients. DP and DDD patients differed significantly in the number, extent, and severity of degeneration. DDD patients had a significantly higher number of degenerated discs than DP patients (p
ISSN:1529-9430
1878-1632
DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.042