scholarly journals Correlation Between Clinical And Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings In Patients With Lumbosacral Radiculopathy

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-39
Author(s):  
Mukul Kumar Sarkar ◽  
Pijush Kumar Kundu ◽  
Md Munzur Alahi ◽  
Md Pervez Amin ◽  
Achinta Kumar Mallick ◽  
...  

Low back pain accounts for a large amount of loss of productivity in the workforce. When the low back pain extends into the lower limb along the distribution of a dermatome then radiculopathy is said to be present. Although most people experience back pain during their lifetime, only a fraction experience lumbosacral radiculopathy as a consequence of nerve root compression or irritation. Almost 5% males and 2.5% females experience lumbosacral radiculopathy at some time in their lifetime. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the preferred investigation for the diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathy. So, in the evaluation of a patient of lumbosacral radiculopathy is essential to correlate clinical symptoms and signs with the finding detected in the MRI to arrive at a correct diagnosis and arrange an appropriate management. So this study was done to see the correlation between clinical and MRI finding of radiculopathy at different nerve root level in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy. It was a cross sectional descriptive study. All 40 patients of lumbosacral radiculopathy who were presented to Rajshahi Medical College Hospital during the study period from 01/11/2011 to 30/10/2012 were included in the study. There were 30 males and 10 females having an M: F ratio of 3:1. Mean age of total patients 43 + 14.74 years. 67.5% patients were between 20 to 50 years and 60% patients were performing heavy work. 67.5% patients had unilateral involvement while 32.6% patients had bilateral involvement. 72.5% patients had muscle weakness and 27.5% had no muscle weakness. 67.5% patients had sensory impairment and 32.5% had no sensory involvement. Knee jerk changes were present in 60% patients and ankle jerk changes in 66.66% patients. As expected 52.18% had L5 and 32.61% had S1 radiculopathy. The difference in clinical and MRI detection of root involvement was statistically significant (p value < 0.05) in both sides at L4, L5 and S1 root levels but there was no significant difference at the L3 root level (p value 1.00) Intervertebral disc herniation was the commonest cause of lumbosacral radiculopathy (72.32%) and second common cause was spinal canal stenosis (19.44%). Others are intervertebral disc budging (61.52%), disc protrusion (23.08%) and disc extrusion (15.38%). Correlation between clinical severity and MRI grading of lumbosacral radiculopathy which was statistically significant. So, it is concluded that clinical findings correlate well with MRI finding, but all MRI abnormalities need not have a clinical significanceTAJ 2015; 28(1): 32-39

Author(s):  
T Kotwicki ◽  
S Rubczak ◽  
P Glowka

The aim of the study is to evaluate the morphology of the intervertebral discs visible in the magnetic resonance image in patients with sudden severe low back pain (with or without radiation of pain to the lower limb). The second goal of the study is to perform a digital three-plane reconstruction of the intervertebral disc and to compare this technique with a standard magnetic resonance imaging test. Twenty-five patients, mean age 35.5 years, all with acute low back pain, were examined. We compared the 3D MR models with standard MRI scans by measuring seven MRI parameters. In patients with sudden, severe low back pain, with clinical symptoms suggesting an etiology within the intervertebral disc, changes in a standard MRI are found consisting of the presence of a hernia / protrusion of the intervertebral disc and lowering the height of the intervertebral disc – with lowering the disc height occurs to a greater extent in the rear section. The 3D reconstruction is a reliable 3D representation of the intervertebral disc and adjacent vertebral bodies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Izaya Ogon ◽  
Tsuneo Takebayashi ◽  
Hiroyuki Takashima ◽  
Tomonori Morita ◽  
Noriyuki Iesato ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 621-628
Author(s):  
Izaya Ogon ◽  
Hiroyuki Takashima ◽  
Tomonori Morita ◽  
Tsutomu Oshigiri ◽  
Yoshinori Terashima ◽  
...  

Study Design: Cross-sectional study.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to elucidate the relevance among Schmorl’s node (SN), chronic low back pain (CLBP), and intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) with the use of magnetic resonance imaging T2 mapping.Overview of Literature: SN may be combined with CLBP and/or IVDD; however, their relationship has not been determined to date.Methods: A total of 105 subjects were included (48 men and 57 women; mean age, 63.2±2.7 years; range, 22–84 years). We analyzed five functional spinal unit levels (L1–S1) and evaluated the T2 values of the anterior annulus fibrosus (AF), nucleus pulposus, and posterior AF. We compared the low back pain (LBP) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores and the T2 values in each decade with or without SN.Results: There were no remarkable differences in SN prevalence rate regarding age decade or gender. SNs were more prevalent in the upper 2 levels (70.3%). LBP VAS scores with and without SN were 64.7±4.3 mm and 61.9±2.8 mm, respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (<i>p</i> =0.62). The T2 values of anterior AF with SN were significantly lower than those without SN in patients in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s (<i>p</i> <0.01).Conclusions: SN presence is not itself a risk factor for CLBP; however, it indicates IVDD of the anterior AF in subjects with SN who are ≥50 years old.


2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Izaya Ogon ◽  
Tsuneo Takebayashi ◽  
Hiroyuki Takashima ◽  
Katsumasa Tanimoto ◽  
Kazunori Ida ◽  
...  

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 ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document