The Use of Diagnostic Imaging in Low Back or Leg Pain

Overview

Journal Turk J Phys Med Rehabil

Specialty Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2019 Aug 28

PMID 31453473

Authors

Aysegul Yaman

Yesim Gokce Kutsal

Sevilay Karahan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the imaging method preferences of physicians working in different clinics and departments for the patients suffering from low back and/or leg pain.

Patients And Methods: In this retrospective study, the radiological imaging types of 900 patients (301 males, 599 females; mean age 46.8±17.1 years; range 2 to 89 years) with low back and/or radicular leg pain who were admitted for the first time to the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR), Orthopedics and Traumatology (OT), and Neurosurgery (NS) clinics in our hospital between July 2013 and August 2014 were reviewed. Age, sex, and radiological methods applied were recorded. The correlation between radiological methods and differences in terms of age and sex and how the radiological method preferences differed according to the departments were evaluated.

Results: Of the patients, 22%, 35% and 34.7% were evaluated without using any imaging methods in the OT, PMR, and NS outpatient clinics, respectively. A total of 32.7%, 48.7%, and 8.7% of the patients were evaluated using lumbar X-ray in the OT, PMR, and NS outpatient clinics, respectively. A total of 19.3%, 11.7%, and 54.3% of the patients were evaluated using the lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the OT, PMR, and NS outpatient clinics, respectively. There were no statistically significant correlations between the age, sex, and imaging modality used.

Conclusion: Our study results showed that the most common imaging tool which is used by the physicians in the PMR and OT clinics is lumbar X-ray, while the lumbar MRI is the most common tool in the NS clinics. However, we recommend that not only the medical, but ethical aspects and cost-effectiveness of the imaging modality to be selected should be considered.

References

van Tulder M, Becker A, Bekkering T, Breen A, Gil Del Real M, Hutchinson A . Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15 Suppl 2:S169-91. PMC: 3454540. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-1071-2. View

Bradley Jr W . Low back pain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007; 28(5):990-2. PMC: 8134362. View

Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross Jr J, Shekelle P . Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147(7):478-91. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00006. View

Chou R, Fu R, Carrino J, Deyo R . Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009; 373(9662):463-72. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60172-0. View

Lateef H, Patel D . What is the role of imaging in acute low back pain?. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2009; 2(2):69-73. PMC: 2697333. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-008-9037-0. View

Lehnert B, Bree R . Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support?. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7(3):192-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.11.010. View

Chou R, Qaseem A, Owens D, Shekelle P . Diagnostic imaging for low back pain: advice for high-value health care from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154(3):181-9. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-3-201102010-00008. View

Flynn T, Smith B, Chou R . Appropriate use of diagnostic imaging in low back pain: a reminder that unnecessary imaging may do as much harm as good. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011; 41(11):838-46. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3618. View

Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R . The Epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011; 24(6):769-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002. View

10.

Atalabi O, Ogunlade S, Agunloye A . The lumbosacral radiographs in the initial screening of low back pain - is one view enough?. Niger J Clin Pract. 2011; 14(3):284-6. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.86768. View

11.

Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F . A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012; 64(6):2028-37. DOI: 10.1002/art.34347. View

12.

Keshtkaran A, Bagheri M, Ostovar R, Salari H, Farokhi M, Esfandiari A . Developing Criteria for Lumbar Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Using RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM). Iran J Radiol. 2013; 9(3):130-8. PMC: 3522376. DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.4063. View

13.

Motiei-Langroudi R, Sadeghian H, Seddighi A . Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging factors which may predict the need for surgery in lumbar disc herniation. Asian Spine J. 2014; 8(4):446-52. PMC: 4149987. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2014.8.4.446. View

14.

Jame S, Akbari Sari A, Majdzadeh R, Rashidian A, Arab M, Rahmani H . The extent of inappropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging in low back pain and its contributory factors. Int J Prev Med. 2014; 5(8):1029-36. PMC: 4258662. View

15.

Patel N, Broderick D, Burns J, Deshmukh T, Fries I, Harvey H . ACR Appropriateness Criteria Low Back Pain. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016; 13(9):1069-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.06.008. View

16.

Jensen M, Brant-Zawadzki M, Obuchowski N, Modic M, Malkasian D, Ross J . Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994; 331(2):69-73. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199407143310201. View

17.

Cassidy J, Carroll L, Cote P . The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey. The prevalence of low back pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 23(17):1860-6; discussion 1867. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199809010-00012. View