Search

Abstract Objective To determine the inter-rater reliability of identifying differences and types of differences in lumbar degenerative findings comparing supine and upright MRI. Materials and methods Fifty-nine participants, low back pain patients (LBP) with or without leg pain and no-LBP individuals were consecutively enrolled to receive supine and upright MRI of the lumbar spine. Three raters independently evaluated the MRIs for degenerative spinal pathologies and compared for differences. Presence/absence of degenerative findings were recorded for all supine and upright images, and then differences from the supine to the upright positions were classified into no-change, appeared, disappeared, worsened, or improved at each individual disc level. Reliability and agreement were calculated using Gwet’s agreement coefficients (AC1 or AC2) and absolute agreement. Results Inter-rater reliability of evaluating differences in eight degenerative lumbar findings comparing the supine and upright MRI position, ranged from 0.929 to 0.996 according to Gwet’s agreement coefficients (AC2). The total number of positive MRI findings in the supine position ranged from 270 to 453, with an average of 366 per rater. Observed differences from supine to upright MRI ranged from 18 to 80, with an average of 56 per rater. Conclusion Inter-rater reliability was found overall acceptable for classification of differences in eight types of degenerative pathology observed with supine and upright MRI of the lumbar spine. Results were primarily driven by high numbers and high reliability of rating negative findings, whereas agreement regarding positive findings and positive positional differences was lower.

Background The importance of lumbar findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains controversial. Changes in lumbar MRI findings over time may provide important insights into the causes of low back pain. However, the reliability and validity of temporal changes are unknown. Objective To (1) investigate the interrater reliability of subjective radiologist reporting of temporal changes in lumbar spine MRI findings and (2) determine how commonly temporal changes are reported when two scans are conducted 30 minutes apart (considered false positives). Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Radiology clinic. Participants Forty volunteers (mean age 40; 53% female) with current (n = 31) or previous (n = 9) low back pain underwent initial lumbar MRI on a single 3T scanner. Participants then lay on a bed for 30 minutes before undergoing an identical MRI. In addition, we purposely selected five participants from a previous study with repeat lumbar MRI scans where temporal changes were reported in at least one MRI finding (1-12 weeks after initial scan) and another five participants where no temporal change was reported. The 10 participants were included in analyses for aim 1 only. Interventions Not applicable. Main outcome measures Two blinded radiologists reported on temporal changes between the baseline and repeat scan for 12 different MRI findings (eg, disk herniation, annular fissure) at five levels. Results The interrater reliability of subjective reporting of temporal changes was poor for all MRI findings based on Kappa values (≤ 0.24), but agreement was relatively high (≥ 90.8%). This is explained by the low prevalence of temporal changes as demonstrated by high values for Prevalence and Bias Adjusted Kappa (≥ 0.82). "False positive" temporal changes were reported by at least one radiologist for most MRI findings, but the rate was generally low. Conclusions Caution is required when interpreting temporal changes in lumbar MRI findings owing to low reliability and some false positive reporting.

Study Design. Case-control study. Objective. Investigate the association between lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings and 5-year trajectories of low back pain (LBP) in young Australian adults. Summary of Background Data. The association between lumbar spine imaging findings and LBP remains unclear due to important limitations of previous research, such as a lack of clearly defined LBP phenotypes and inadequate controlling for age, which may substantially affect the association. Methods. Seventy-eight ‘‘case’’ participants with a previously identified ‘‘consistent high disabling LBP’’ trajectory from age 17 to 22 years and 78 ‘‘control’’ participants from a trajectory with consistently low LBP over the same time period, matched for sex, body mass index, physical activity levels, and work physical demands, were identified from Gen2 Raine Study participants. At age 27, participants underwent a standardized lumbar MRI scan, from which 14 specific MRI phenotypes were identified. Primary analyses used unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for covariates used in the matching process, to investigate the relationship between presence of each imaging finding and being a case or control. Secondary analyses explored those relationships based on the number of spinal levels with each MRI finding. Results. The odds for being a case compared with a control were higher in those with disc degeneration (Pfirrmann grade ≥ 3; OR = 3.21, 95% CI: 1.60 – 6.44; P = 0.001) or those with a herniation (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.96 – 3.74; P – 0.065). We also found that the association became substantially stronger when either disc degeneration or herniation was present at two or more spinal levels (OR = 5.56, 95% CI: 1.97 – 15.70; P = 0.001, and OR = 5.85, 95% CI: 1.54 – 22.25; P = 0.009, respectively). The other investigated MRI findings were not associated with greater odds of being a case. Conclusion. Lumbar disc degeneration and herniation may be important contributors to disabling LBP in young adults. Further investigation of their potential prognostic and causal roles is indicated.

Background It is unclear if the use of imaging for low back pain (LBP) is impacted by patient beliefs. This study aimed to: (1) describe beliefs about the importance of imaging and whether patients wanted imaging when presenting for chiropractic care for LBP; (2) describe associations between baseline patient characteristics and imaging beliefs and whether patients wanted imaging; and (3) determine whether patients who believed imaging to be important in the management of LBP, or who wanted to receive imaging, were more likely to receive an imaging referral. Methods Cross-sectional observational data was collected between November 2016 to December 2019 from 10 primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Consecutive patients aged 18 or older and presenting with a new episode of LBP were included (N = 2818). Beliefs about the importance of imaging (two questions) and whether imaging was wanted (one question) were collected at the initial visit, together with baseline participant characteristics and whether an imaging referral was provided. Associations between imaging beliefs/desire to receive imaging and participant characteristics were explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The relationships between imaging beliefs and desire to receive imaging with subsequent imaging referral were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for pre-selected confounder variables. Results Approximately one third of participants believed imaging to be important for the management of LBP (29.5% (95%CI 27.8, 31.3) or 41.5% (95%CI 39.6, 43.3) depending on the two imaging beliefs questions). Approximately one quarter (26.1%, 95%CI 24.5, 27.7) of participants wanted to receive an imaging referral. Participants were more likely to believe in the importance of imaging or want an imaging referral if they had a longer duration of LBP, history of previous imaging for LBP, or a lower completed education level. Participants who wanted imaging at the initial consult were more likely to receive an imaging referral (Odds ratio; 95%CI 1.6; 1.2, 2.1). Conclusions Approximately one third of patients presenting for chiropractic care in Denmark believed imaging to be important in the management of LBP. One quarter wanted imaging at the initial consult. Patients’ desire for imaging appeared to impact the use of diagnostic imaging.

Objective: To investigate the associations between complement C3d and inflammatory and structural changes by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) suggestive of axial spondyloarthritis, according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria, in patients with low back pain.Method: This was a cross-sectional study of patients referred to the Spine Centre of Southern Denmark owing to unspecified low back pain (Spines of Southern Denmark cohort). The patients were divided into three groups: group 1: patients fulfilling the ASAS criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA, n = 96); group 2: patients with either a positive MRI of the SIJ and no spondyloarthritis features, or a negative MRI of the SIJ but positive human leucocyte antigen-B27 and one spondyloarthritis feature (non-axSpA, n = 38); group 3: patients with unspecified low back pain for > 3 months (control group, n = 82). Complement C3d was measured with double-decker rocket immunoelectrophoresis and evaluated in relation to the group division and baseline findings by SIJ MRI.Results: In total, 184 C3d analyses were performed. The mean ± sd level of C3d was 33.8 ± 8.1 AU/mL. There were no differences in C3d levels between the three patient groups, mean values being: axSpA = 34.3 ± 7.9 AU/mL, non-axSpA = 33.5 ± 6.9 AU/mL, and controls = 33.4 ± 9.2 AU/mL. The level of C3d was not related to MRI findings.Conclusions: In these patients, complement C3d was not associated with active or structural SIJ changes on MRI suggestive of axial spondyloarthritis.

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is highly associated with inflammation in the context of low back pain. Currently, inflammation is associated with adverse symptoms related to the stimulation of nerve fibers that may lead to pain. However, inflammation has also been indicated as the main factor responsible for LDH regression. This apparent controversy places inflammation as a good prognostic indicator of spontaneous regression of LDH. This review addresses the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in LDH regression, including matrix remodeling and neovascularization, in the scope of the clinical decision on conservative versus surgical intervention. Based on the evidence, a special focus on the inflammatory response in the LDH context is given, particularly in the monocyte/macrophage role. The phenomenon of spontaneous regression of LDH, extensively reported in the literature, is therefore analyzed here under the perspective of the modulatory role of inflammation. This work was financed by project “Bioengineered Therapies for infectious diseases and tissue regeneration” (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000012), supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), by FEDER/COMPETE 2020 (POCI), Portugal 2020, and by Portuguese funds through FCT/MCTES in the framework of the project "Institute for Research and Innovation in Health Sciences" (POCI-01- 0145-FEDER-007274). Cunha C and Gonçalves RM acknowledge FCT by their postdoc fellowship (SFRH/BDP/87071/2012) and FCT Investigator Grant (IF/ 00638/2014), respectively. Silva AJ acknowledges her fellowship under the framework of the project Norte-01-0145-FEDER-000012.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The clinical importance of lumbar MR imaging findings is unclear. This study was an exploratory investigation of whether lumbar spine MR imaging findings change more commonly during a 12-week period in individuals with acute low back pain compared with pain-free controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty individuals with recent-onset low back pain and 10 pain-free controls were recruited into an exploratory prospective cohort study. All participants had a lumbar spine MR imaging at baseline and repeat MR imaging scans at 1, 2, 6, and 12 weeks. The proportion of individuals who had MR imaging findings that changed during the 12-week period was compared with the same proportion in the controls. RESULTS: In 85% of subjects, we identified a change in at least 1 MR imaging finding during the 12 weeks; however, the proportion was similar in the controls (80%). A change in disc herniation, annular fissure, and nerve root compromise was reported more than twice as commonly in the subjects as in controls (65% versus 30%, 25% versus 10%, and 15% versus 0%, respectively). Caution is required in interpreting these findings due to wide confidence intervals, including no statistical difference. For all other MR imaging findings, the proportions of subjects and controls in whom MR imaging findings were reported to change during 12 weeks were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in MR imaging findings were observed in a similar proportion of the low back pain and control groups, except for herniations, annular fissures, and nerve root compromise, which were twice as common in subjects with low back pain.

Background Occupational medicine seeks to reduce sick leave; however, evidence for an add-on effect to usual care is sparse. The objective of the GOBACK trial was to test whether people with low back pain (LBP) in physically demanding jobs and at risk of sick leave gain additional benefit from a 3-month complex intervention that involves occupational medicine consultations, a work-related evaluation and workplace intervention plan, an optional workplace visit, and a physical activity program, over a single hospital consultation and an MRI. Methods and findings We enrolled people from the capital region of Denmark to an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with a superiority design from March 2014 through December 2015. In a hospital setting 305 participants (99 women) with LBP and in physically demanding jobs were randomized to occupational intervention (n = 153) or no additional intervention (control group; n = 152) added to a single hospital consultation giving a thorough explanation of the pain (i.e., clinical examination and MRI) and instructions to stay active and continue working. Primary outcome was accumulated sick leave days due to LBP during 6 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in neuropathic pain (painDETECT questionnaire [PDQ]), pain 0–10 numerical rating scale (NRS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and self-assessed ability to continue working (range 0–10). An intention-to-treat analysis of sick leave at 6 months showed no significant difference between groups (mean difference in days suggestively in favor of no additional intervention: 3.50 [95% CI –5.08 to 12.07], P = 0.42). Both groups showed significant improvements in average pain score (NRS), disability (RMDQ), fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activities and work (FABQ), and physical HRQoL (SF-36 physical component summary); there were no significant differences between the groups in any secondary outcome. There was no statistically significant improvement in neuropathic pain (PDQ score), mental HRQoL (SF-36 mental component summary), and self-assessed ability to stay in job. Four participants could not complete the MRI or the intervention due to a claustrophobic attack or accentuated back pain. Workplace visits may be an important element in the occupational intervention, although not always needed. A per-protocol analysis that included the 40 participants in the intervention arm who received a workplace visit as part of the additional occupational intervention did not show an add-on benefit in terms of sick leave (available cases after 6 months, mean difference: –0.43 days [95% CI –12.8 to 11.94], P = 0.945). The main limitations were the small number of sick leave days taken and that the comprehensive use of MRI may limit generalization of the findings to other settings, for example, general practice. Conclusions When given a single hospital consultation and MRI, people in physically demanding jobs at risk of sick leave due to LBP did not benefit from a complex additional occupational intervention. Occupational interventions aimed at limiting biopsychological obstacles (e.g., fear-avoidance beliefs and behaviors), barriers in the workplace, and system barriers seem essential to reduce sick leave in patients with LBP. This study indicates that these obstacles and barriers may be addressed by thorough usual care. Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02015572, In a randomized trial, Bjarke Brandt Hansen and colleagues study a complex occupational intervention for patients with low back pain., Author summary Why was this study done? Individuals with low back pain (LBP), especially those in physically demanding jobs, are at risk of taking sick leave. The resultant loss of productivity adds to the already considerable socioeconomic burden of LBP. While occupational medicine interventions can help to reduce sick leave, there is limited evidence available on the effect of such interventions in people at risk of sick leave due to LBP who receive a thorough single hospital consultation. What did the researchers do and find? This parallel-group randomized clinical trial compared an early occupational intervention added to usual care with usual care alone in patients with LBP and physically demanding jobs; of note, usual care included a clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging scan to enable a thorough explanation of the pain, and recommendations to stay active in work. The trial showed no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of accumulated sick leave during a 6-month period, although both groups did show improvements from baseline in pain, fear-avoidance beliefs, physical quality of life, and disability at 6 months. What do these findings mean? This study indicates that LBP interventions that include an explanation of the pain might be sufficient to limit sick leave in patients with LBP and physically demanding jobs; an approach that could be integrated into usual care and an early occupational intervention would not necessarily have to be carried out by a specialist in occupational medicine.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being used extensively in the search for pathoanatomical factors contributing to low back pain (LBP) such as Modic changes (MC). However, it remains unclear whether clinical findings can identify patients with MC. The purpose of this explorative study was to assess the predictive value of six clinical tests and three questionnaires commonly used with patients with low-back pain (LBP) on the presence of Modic changes (MC).Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from Dutch military personnel in the period between April 2013 and July 2016. Questionnaires included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. The clinical examination included (i) range of motion, (ii) presence of pain during flexion and extension, (iii) Prone Instability Test, and (iv) straight leg raise. Backward stepwise regression was used to estimate predictive value for the presence of MC and the type of MC. The exploration of clinical tests was performed by univariable logistic regression models.Results: Two hundred eighty-six patients were allocated for the study, and 112 cases with medical records and MRI scans were available; 60 cases with MC and 52 without MC. Age was significantly higher in the MC group. The univariate regression analysis showed a significantly increased odds ratio for pain during flexion movement (2.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-6.08]) in the group with MC. Multivariable logistic regression of all clinical symptoms and signs showed no significant association for any of the variables. The diagnostic value of the clinical tests expressed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values showed, for all the combinations, a low area under the curve (AUC) score, ranging from 0.41 to 0.53. Single-test sensitivity was the highest for pain in flexion: 60% (95% CI: 48.3-70.4).Conclusion: No model to predict the presence of MC, based on clinical tests, could be demonstrated. It is therefore not likely that LBP patients with MC are very different from other LBP patients and that they form a specific subgroup. However, the study only explored a limited number of clinical findings and it is possible that larger samples allowing for more variables would conclude differently.

Objective: To investigate the association between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings at the sacroiliac (SI) joints and vertebral endplates and pain characteristics assumed to be indicative of axial inflammation. Methods: Patients ages 18–40 years with persistent low back pain referred to an outpatient spine clinic participated, including an unknown proportion of axial spondyloarthritis patients. Data included MRI of the spine and SI joints and self-reported responses to questions covering the Calin, Berlin, Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society, and Bailly inflammatory back pain (IBP) definitions. Results: In the 1,020 included patients, 53% were women, and the median age was 33 years. Positive associations were found between the SI joint MRI findings and pain characteristics, odds ratios ranging from 1.4 to 2.7. SI joint bone marrow edema (BME) was associated with morning stiffness >60 minutes, and SI joint erosions with the Calin, Berlin, and Bailly IBP definitions, alternating buttock pain, and good response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. SI joint fatty marrow deposition (FMD) was associated with insidious onset, and SI joint sclerosis with pain at night. In addition, the spinal MRI changes were associated with IBP, odds ratios ranging from 1.4 to 2.0; vertebral endplate BME was associated with morning stiffness, and vertebral endplate FMD with the Calin and Bailly IBP definitions, improvement with exercise, morning stiffness >30 minutes, and pain worst in the morning. Conclusion: The identified associations between inflammatory MRI findings and pain characteristics indicate that axial inflammation to some degree induces a specific pain pattern. Thus, the results add to knowledge of axial inflammatory processes. However, all identified associations were weak, which compromises the use of IBP as a marker of axial inflammation.

Study design A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis using two different datasets. Objective To investigate if the number of different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings present is more strongly associated with low back pain (LBP) than single MRI findings. Summary of background data Most previous studies have investigated the associations between single MRI findings and back pain rather than investigating combinations of MRI findings. If different individuals have different pathoanatomic sources contributing to their pain, then combinations of MRI findings may be more strongly associated with LBP. Methods This study used data from two previous studies that investigated the association between single MRI findings and LBP. One study was a cross-sectional population cohort of 412 people of 40 years; the second was a longitudinal cohort of 76 people recently recovered from LBP who were followed for 12 months. The outcome for the cross-sectional study was presence of LBP during the last year. The outcome for the longitudinal study was days to recurrence of activity limiting LBP. In both datasets, we created an aggregate score of the number of different MRI findings present in each individual and assessed the relationship between this aggregate score and LBP. Results The risk of LBP outcome increased with increasing numbers of different MRI findings. Compared with those with no MRI findings, those with three MRI findings were at substantially greater risk of LBP in the last year (odd ratio = 14.1; 95% confidence interval, 4.32-49.47) in the cross-sectional study, or of future recurrence of LBP (hazard ratio = 12.2; 95% confidence interval 1.26-118.21) in the longitudinal study. Conclusion The aggregate MRI score was more strongly associated with LBP outcomes than single MRI findings in both datasets. Further investigation of this approach is indicated. Level of evidence 2.

Plain lumbar spine radiographic examination (LSRE) is frequently used in medical practice and delivers a high dose of ionising radiation. The objectives of the study were to determine the annual frequency of LSRE in Switzerland and its distribution according to practitioners' and patients' characteristics, as well as the related population dose of ionising radiation. Data were extrapolated from a nationwide questionnaire survey on radiation exposure resulting from medical imaging in 1998, involving physicians and other healthcare providers performing radiological examinations in Switzerland. An estimated number of 273,000 LSRE are performed annually in Switzerland (39 LSRE per 1000 inhabitants per year). The collective dose to the population due to LSRE was 1130 Sv (0.16 mSv per person per year). 50-60% of these procedures were performed to confirm or rule out a diagnosis, the majority (85%) in the context of an illness. LSRE is the third most frequent radiographic procedure performed and delivers the highest population dose of ionising radiation of any radiodiagnostic procedure. Efforts to reduce the frequency and the radiation dose of this procedure must be kept up, technically by optimising the equipment and radioprotection measures, and clinically by implementing evidence-based approaches to appropriate indications for this imaging technique.

IntroductionThis cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice.MethodsGeneral practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation.Results47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan.ConclusionsThe intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour.Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the management of low back pain (LBP). This review provides an overview of the clinical relevance of degenerative MRI findings in the lumbar spine. The association between degenerative MRI findings and LBP is relatively consistent at population level, but very little research exists on the prognostic value of MRI findings and based on the current evidence, MRI cannot be used to guide treatment. Lumbar spine MRI is only recommended for patients with progressive neurological deficits, suspicion of specific pathology or in absence of progress of conservative treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the management of low back pain (LBP). This review provides an overview of the clinical relevance of degenerative MRI findings in the lumbar spine. The association between degenerative MRI findings and LBP is relatively consistent at population level, but very little research exists on the prognostic value of MRI findings and based on the current evidence, MRI cannot be used to guide treatment. Lumbar spine MRI is only recommended for patients with progressive neurological deficits, suspicion of specific pathology or in absence of progress of conservative treatment.