How Does Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease Affect the Disc Deformation at the Cephalic Levels In Vivo?

Study Design. Case-control study. Objective. To evaluate the effect of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) on the disc deformation at the adjacent level and at the level one above the adjacent level during end ranges of lumbar motion. Summary of Background Data. It has been reported that in patients with DDD, the intervertebral discs adjacent to the diseased levels have a greater tendency to degenerate. Although altered biomechanics have been suggested to be the causative factors, few data have been reported on the deformation characteristics of the adjacent discs in patients with DDD. Methods. Ten symptomatic patients with discogenic low back pain between L4 and S1 and with healthy discs at the cephalic segments were involved. Eight healthy subjects recruited in our previous studies were used as a reference comparison. The In Vivo kinematics of L3–L4 (the cephalic adjacent level to the degenerated discs) and L2–L3 (the level one above the adjacent level) lumbar discs of both groups were obtained using a combined magnetic resonance imaging and dual fluoroscopic imaging technique at functional postures. Deformation characteristics, in terms of areas of minimal deformation (defined as less than 5%), deformations at the center of the discs, and maximum tensile and shear deformations, were compared between the two groups at the two disc levels. Results. In the patients with DDD, there were significantly smaller areas of minimal disc deformation at L3–L4 and L2–L3 than the healthy subjects (18% compared with 45% of the total disc area, on average). Both L2–L3 and L3–L4 discs underwent larger tensile and shear deformations in all postures than the healthy subjects. The maximum tensile deformations were higher by up to 23% (of the local disc height in standing) and the maximum shear deformations were higher by approximately 25% to 40% (of the local disc height in standing) compared with those of the healthy subjects. Conclusion. Both the discs of the adjacent level and the level one above experienced higher tensile and shear deformations during end ranges of lumbar motion in the patients with DDD before surgical treatments when compared with the healthy subjects. The larger disc deformations at the cephalic segments were otherwise not detectable using conventional magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Future studies should investigate the effect of surgical treatments, such as fusion or disc replacement, on the biomechanics of the adjacent segments during end ranges of lumbar motion.

[1]  E Viikari-Juntura,et al.  Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. , 2000, Spine.

[2]  M. Adams,et al.  THE BIOMECHANICS OF BACK PAIN , 2003 .

[3]  G. Bergmann,et al.  Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[4]  Achim Elfering,et al.  Young Investigator Award 2001 Winner: Risk Factors for Lumbar Disc Degeneration: A 5-Year Prospective MRI Study in Asymptomatic Individuals , 2002, Spine.

[5]  J. Lee,et al.  The Impact of Adjacent Segment Degeneration on the Clinical Outcome After Lumbar Spinal Fusion , 2008, Spine.

[6]  Qun Xia,et al.  Measurement of geometric deformation of lumbar intervertebral discs under in-vivo weightbearing condition. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Biomechanics of the Spine: Clinical and Surgical Perspective , 1989 .

[8]  J. V. van Horn,et al.  The development of discopathy in lumbar discs adjacent to a lumbar anterior interbody spondylodesis. A retrospective matched-pair study with a postoperative follow-up of 16 years. , 1992, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[9]  John H. Evans,et al.  Effects of Short Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion on Biomechanics of Neighboring Unfused Segments , 1996, Spine.

[10]  B. Strömqvist,et al.  The Spondylolytic Vertebra and Its Adjacent Segment: Mobility Measured Before and After Posterolateral Fusion , 1997, Spine.

[11]  L. Wiltse,et al.  The Transition Zone Above a Lumbosacral Fusion , 1998, Spine.

[12]  B. Cunningham,et al.  The Effect of Spinal Destabilization and Instrumentation on Lumbar Intradiscal Pressure: An In Vitro Biomechanical Analysis , 1997, Spine.

[13]  Paul A. Anderson,et al.  Intervertebral Disc Arthroplasty , 2004, Spine.

[14]  H. Paajanen,et al.  Disc Degeneration in Low Back Pain: A 17-Year Follow-up Study Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2007, Spine.

[15]  Cheng-Kung Cheng,et al.  Biomechanical Comparison of Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With One or Two Cages by Finite Element Analysis , 2006, Spine.

[16]  F. T. Wetzel,et al.  Intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to a lumbar fusion. An experimental rabbit model. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[17]  Ian A. F. Stokes,et al.  Mechanical Conditions That Accelerate Intervertebral Disc Degeneration: Overload Versus Immobilization , 2004, Spine.

[18]  Gang Li,et al.  Measurement of Vertebral Kinematics Using Noninvasive Image Matching Method–Validation and Application , 2008, Spine.

[19]  C. Pfirrmann,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Classification of Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Degeneration , 2001, Spine.

[20]  Alexander R. Vaccaro,et al.  Lumbar Adjacent Segment Degeneration and Disease After Arthrodesis and Total Disc Arthroplasty , 2008, Spine.

[21]  Paul Park,et al.  Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar or Lumbosacral Fusion: Review of the Literature , 2004, Spine.

[22]  J W Frymoyer,et al.  A Comparison of Radiographic Findings in Fusion and Nonfusion Patients Ten or More Years Following Lumbar Disc Surgery , 1979, Spine.

[23]  A. R.,et al.  Review of literature , 1951, American Potato Journal.

[24]  W. Jee,et al.  Degenerative Changes of Discs and Facet Joints in Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Using ProDisc II: Minimum Two-Year Follow-up , 2008, Spine.

[25]  H. Möller,et al.  A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[26]  Shih-Hao Chen,et al.  Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. , 2009, Medical engineering & physics.

[27]  A. Milby,et al.  Segmental Contribution Toward Total Lumbar Range of Motion in Disc Replacement and Fusions: A Comparison of Operative and Adjacent Levels , 2009, Spine.

[28]  D. Schlenzka,et al.  Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: A long-term follow-up , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[29]  D. Disler,et al.  Fat-suppressed spoiled GRASS imaging of knee hyaline cartilage: technique optimization and comparison with conventional MR imaging. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  N. Osada,et al.  Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360° fusion , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[31]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[32]  V K Goel,et al.  Effect of Disc Degeneration at One Level on the Adjacent Level in Axial Mode , 1991, Spine.

[33]  Naresh Kumar,et al.  Analysis of Stress Distribution in Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2005, Spine.

[34]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  Intradiscal Pressure Measurements Above an Instrumented Fusion: A Cadaveric Study , 1995, Spine.

[35]  Chen-Sheng Chen,et al.  A biomechanical comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior fusion in the lumbar spine. , 2002, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[36]  CASEY K. LEE,et al.  Accelerated Degeneration of the Segment Adjacent to a Lumbar Fusion , 1988, Spine.

[37]  B. Strömqvist,et al.  Adjacent segment hypermobility after lumbar spine fusion: No association with progressive degeneration of the segment 5 years after surgery , 2007, Acta orthopaedica.

[38]  D. Ku,et al.  Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[39]  I W Nelson,et al.  Mechanical initiation of intervertebral disc degeneration. , 2000, Spine.

[40]  I. Stokes,et al.  Assessment of Patients With Low-Back Pain by Biplanar Radiographic Measurement of Intervertebral Motion , 1981, Spine.

[41]  R. Fraser,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment of Disc Degeneration 10 Years After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 1995, Spine.

[42]  G. Andersson,et al.  Influence of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease on the behavior of the adjacent segments--a finite element model study. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[43]  Edward Teng,et al.  Hybrid Testing of Lumbar CHARITÉ Discs Versus Fusions , 2007, Spine.

[44]  N. Osada,et al.  Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360 degrees fusion. , 2007, European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society.

[45]  N. Langrana,et al.  Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. , 1984, Spine.

[46]  Guoan Li,et al.  Segmental in vivo vertebral motion during functional human lumbar spine activities , 2009, European Spine Journal.