Is It Appropriate to Measure Age-related Lumbar Disc Degeneration on the Mid-sagittal MR Image? A Quantitative Image Study
Overview
Affiliations
Purpose: Even though phenotypes of disc degeneration vary on different sagittal magnetic resonance images (MRI), measurements typically are acquired on the mid-sagittal MRI. This study investigated the appropriateness of using the mid-sagittal MRI to measure various phenotypes of age-related disc degeneration.
Methods: Lumbar spine MRIs of 66 subjects (mean age 50.3 years, standard deviation 16.5 years, range 22-84 years) were studied. An image analysis program Spine Explorer was used to obtain quantitative measurements for disc height, bulging, and signal on para- and mid-sagittal T2-weighted MRIs. Measurements on para- and mid-sagittal MRIs and their associations with age were compared.
Results: Measurements of disc height, signal, and posterior disc bulging acquired on the mid-sagittal MRI were greater than those on the para-sagittal MRIs. Disc height measurements were not linearly associated with age. Greater age was correlated with greater anterior (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and posterior (r = 0.33, P < 0.01) bulging on para-sagittal MRIs, but not posterior disc bulging on the mid-sagittal MRI (r = - 0.10, P > 0.05). Disc signal intensity measurements on the mid-sagittal MRI had stronger correlations with age than those on para-sagittal MRIs. Mean and standard deviation of disc signal intensity acquired on the mid-sagittal MRI had the strongest correlations with age among all measures of disc degeneration studied (r = - 0.50, - 0.67, respectively, P < 0.001 for both).
Conclusions: Disc signal measurements acquired on the mid-sagittal MRI were reliable and had strong correlations with age and thus can be used as an appropriate measure of disc degeneration. Disc bulging had better be measured on para-sagittal MRIs. Although severe disc narrowing clearly is a sign of severe disc degeneration, disc height was not linearly associated with age.
Lumbar Intervertebral Disc and Discovertebral Segment, Part 1: An Imaging Review of Normal Anatomy.
Theodorou D, Theodorou S, Gelalis I, Kakitsubata Y Cureus. 2022; 14(6):e25558.
PMID: 35784982 PMC: 9249043. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25558.
Aavikko A, Lohman M, Ristolainen L, Kautiainen H, Osterman K, Schlenzka D Eur Spine J. 2022; 31(5):1080-1087.
PMID: 35333957 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07184-0.
Belavy D, Owen P, Armbrecht G, Bansmann M, Zange J, Ling Y PLoS One. 2021; 16(4):e0249855.
PMID: 33852631 PMC: 8046347. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249855.
New MR-based measures for the evaluation of age-related lumbar paraspinal muscle degeneration.
Hu X, Feng Z, Shen H, Zhang W, Huang J, Zheng Q Eur Spine J. 2021; 30(9):2577-2585.
PMID: 33740145 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-06811-6.
Feasibility of Deep Learning Algorithms for Reporting in Routine Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Lewandrowski K, Muraleedharan N, Eddy S, Sobti V, Reece B, Leon J Int J Spine Surg. 2020; 14(s3):S86-S97.
PMID: 33298549 PMC: 7735442. DOI: 10.14444/7131.