How does lumbar degenerative disc disease affect the disc deformation at the cephalic levels in vivo?
METHODS
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.


BACKGROUND
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.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Bioengineering Lab, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, MA General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Shaobai
S
Wang
Qun
Q
Xia
Peter
P
Passias
Weishi
W
Li
Kirkham
K
Wood
Guoan
G
Li
D000328:Adult; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D005471:Fluoroscopy / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D007403:Intervertebral Disc / Q000473:pathology* / Q000503:physiopathology; D055959:Intervertebral Disc Degeneration / Q000150:complications / Q000473:pathology* / Q000503:physiopathology; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000473:pathology* / Q000503:physiopathology; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008875:Middle Aged; D012447:Sacrum / Q000473:pathology* / Q000503:physiopathology
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Dec 1;29(23):2779-86
15564927
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Mar;84(2):289-94
11922374
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Oct;163(4):887-92
8092029
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1979 Sep-Oct;4(5):435-40
531621
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Dec 1;29(23):2724-32
15564921
J Biomech. 2009 Feb 9;42(3):341-8
19136113
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 15;20(6):743-7
7604353
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Mar;16(3):331-5
2028305
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jul 15;33(16):1755-61
18580548
Eur Spine J. 2009 Jul;18(7):1013-21
19301040
Eur Spine J. 2001 Aug;10(4):309-13
11563616
Eur Spine J. 2007 Dec;16(12):2152-8
17922149
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Sep 1;29(17):1938-44
15534420
Eur Spine J. 1997;6(6):393-7
9455667
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Feb 15;25(4):487-92
10707396
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002 Feb;15(1):53-63
11891453
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 1;31(19):E682-9
16946641
Acupunct Med. 2004 Dec;22(4):178-88
15628775
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2000 Oct;86(6):546-57
11060428
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Aug 15;23(16):1785-92
9728379
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Nov 1;34(23):2510-7
19927100
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Feb 15;22(4):414-7
9055370
Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18(8):1175-86
19337757
Acta Orthop Belg. 1992;58(3):280-6
1441964
J Biomech. 2006;39(4):766-75
16439247
Acta Orthop. 2007 Dec;78(6):834-9
18236192
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jan 15;27(2):125-34
11805656
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jul 1;33(15):1701-7
18594464
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jul 1;25(13):1625-36
10870137
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Apr 20;32(9):959-66; discussion 967
17450069
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981 May-Jun;6(3):233-40
6455745
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Sep 1;26(17):1873-8
11568697
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Aug 1;30(15):1731-5
16094274
Eur Spine J. 2001 Aug;10(4):295-300
11563614
Eur Spine J. 2007 Aug;16(8):1223-31
17206401
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Mar 1;21(5):549-55
8852308
Med Eng Phys. 2009 Mar;31(2):244-53
18760654
J Biomech. 2009 Apr 16;42(6):705-11
19268946
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Nov 15;22(22):2655-63
9399452
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Mar 15;32(6):681-4
17413474
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988 Mar;13(3):375-7
3388124
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 1;20(5):526-31
7604320
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Jul;86(7):1497-503
15252099
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Sep;9(6):574-81
6495027
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 May 15;33(11):E355-61
18469683
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Mar 1;33(5):503-7
18317193