Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Low Back Pain

Author(s):  
Michael E. Hochman

This chapter, found in the back pain section of the book, provides a succinct synopsis of a key study examining the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for low back pain. This summary outlines the study methodology and design, major results, limitations and criticisms, related studies and additional information, and clinical implications. Researchers concluded that although spinal MRIs (compared with plain radiographs) are reassuring for patients with low back pain, they do not lead to improved functional outcomes; also, spinal MRIs detect anatomical abnormalities that would otherwise go undiscovered, possibly leading to spinal surgeries of uncertain value. In addition to outlining the most salient features of the study, a clinical vignette and imaging example are included in order to provide relevant clinical context.

This case focuses on using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for lower back pain by asking the question: Should patients with low back pain requiring imaging be offered plain radiographs or MRI? Study results showed that there were no significant differences in back pain scores between the radiograph and MRI groups, although patients in the MRI group were more likely to be reassured by their imaging results. Also, there were no significant differences in total health care costs between the groups. Although spinal MRI studies (compared with plain radiographs) are reassuring for patients with low back pain, they do not lead to improved functional outcomes. In addition, spinal MRI detects anatomic abnormalities that would otherwise go undiscovered, possibly leading to spinal surgeries of uncertain value.


2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 755-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Steffens ◽  
M.J. Hancock ◽  
C.G. Maher ◽  
C. Williams ◽  
T.S. Jensen ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 232596712199546
Author(s):  
Takuji Yokoe ◽  
Takuya Tajima ◽  
Hiroshi Sugimura ◽  
Shinichirou Kubo ◽  
Shotarou Nozaki ◽  
...  

Background: Spondylolysis and undiagnosed mechanical low back pain (UMLBP) are the main causes of low back pain (LBP) in adolescent athletes. No studies have evaluated the difference in clinical and radiographic factors between these 2 conditions. Furthermore, it remains unclear which adolescent athletes with LBP should undergo advanced imaging examination for spondylolysis. Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiographic factors of adolescent athletes with spondylolysis and UMLBP who did not have neurological symptoms or findings before magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation and to determine the predictors of spondylolysis findings on MRI. Study Design: Cohort study, Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The study population included 122 adolescent athletes aged 11 to 18 years who had LBP without neurological symptoms or findings and who underwent MRI. Of these participants, 75 were ultimately diagnosed with spondylolysis, and 47 were diagnosed with UMLBP. Clinical factors and the following radiographic parameters were compared between the 2 groups: spina bifida occulta, lumbar lordosis (LL) angle, and the ratio of the interfacet distance of L1 to that of L5 (L1:L5 ratio, %). A logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of spondylolysis on MRI scans. Results: Significantly more athletes with spondylolysis were male (82.7% vs 48.9%; P < .001), had a greater LL angle (22.8° ± 8.1° vs 19.3° ± 8.5°; P = .02), and had a higher L1:L5 ratio (67.4% ± 6.3% vs 63.4% ± 6.6%; P = .001) versus athletes with UMLBP. A multivariate analysis revealed that male sex (odds ratio [OR], 4.66; P < .001) and an L1:L5 ratio of >65% (OR, 3.48; P = .003) were independent predictors of positive findings of spondylolysis on MRI scans. Conclusion: The study findings indicated that sex and the L1:L5 ratio are important indicators for whether to perform MRI as an advanced imaging examination for adolescent athletes with LBP who have no neurological symptoms and findings.


2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Haig ◽  
Michael E. Geisser ◽  
Henry C. Tong ◽  
Karen S.J. Yamakawa ◽  
Douglas J. Quint ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
EricOkechukwu Umeh ◽  
UzoamakaRufina Ebubedike ◽  
GodwinI Ogbole ◽  
CA Ndubuisi ◽  
WilfredC Mezue ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document