Users Online: 400
Home Print this page Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Ahead of Print Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
Previous article Browse articles Next article 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Adv Biomed Res 2014,  3:220

Does disk space degeneration according to Los Angeles and Modic scales have relation with recurrent disk herniation?


1 Department of Neurosurgery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Date of Submission14-Feb-2013
Date of Acceptance05-May-2013
Date of Web Publication20-Nov-2014

Correspondence Address:
Mehdi Mahmoudkhani
Department of Neurosurgery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2277-9175.145125

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: After single disk herniation operation, about 5-20% recurrences may occur. Different etiology may affect the prevalence of recurrence. Disk degeneration according to Modic and Los Angles scales could affect recurrence rate. This study wants to show the relationship between disk space degeneration according to these scales on severity, time, and prevalence of disk herniation recurrence.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-four patients presented with radicular pain (with or without back pain) and history of lumbar disk surgery was included in this prospective study. Pre- and postoperative T2-weighted sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared for Modic and Los Angeles disk degeneration grading, then, data analysis on SPSS (version 20) software, paired t-test, and others.
Results: The result of study shows for first operation that grade (II) Los Angeles is the most common, but, for second procedure grade (IV) was less common and the mostly decreased (from 14.7 to 9.2%). In addition, Wilcoxon test shows no change of Los Angeles grading for both first and second surgery (P = 0.06). Whereas; based on Modic criteria grading was different from first operation, in other words, grade (I) (41.2%) in first operation was changed to 20.6% in second operation (P = 0.007).
Conclusion: Our study showed that the Los Angeles criterion is more practical and useful for prediction of recurrence and in the patients with Los Angles grade III and IV and grade II and III on Modic scale, the chance of recurrence is less than patients with lower grades.

Keywords: Disk herniation recurrence, disc space degeneration, Los Angeles scale, Modic scale


How to cite this article:
Abrishamkar S, Mahmoudkhani M, Aminmansour B, Mahabadi A, Jafari S. Does disk space degeneration according to Los Angeles and Modic scales have relation with recurrent disk herniation? . Adv Biomed Res 2014;3:220

How to cite this URL:
Abrishamkar S, Mahmoudkhani M, Aminmansour B, Mahabadi A, Jafari S. Does disk space degeneration according to Los Angeles and Modic scales have relation with recurrent disk herniation? . Adv Biomed Res [serial online] 2014 [cited 2021 Apr 22];3:220. Available from: https://www.advbiores.net/text.asp?2014/3/1/220/145125


  Introduction Top


Lumbar disk herniation is one of the most prevalent operations in neurosurgery and a lot of single level diskectomy is performed daily in many medical centers. [1] At different studies about 15-20% of this surgery perform as foraminotomy that may recur later. Thing that is not attenuated until now is patient disk grading before operation. Primary survey showed at lower grade disk herniation, as surgeon spent more effort and time for complete evacuation, there is less likelihood of recurrence later. [2] At the higher grade, there is not necessary to more manipulation at the disk space and operation can be limited only to disk free fragments evacuation and root decompression. [3] In the spine, vertebrae connect together with disk, facet joints, and spinal ligamentous. Each disk complains of two segments, annulus fibrosus at peripheral and nucleus pulpous at central. [4] In the spinal column, disk acts as pincushion for adjusting mechanical stress. With age and depending on the severity of this stress, disk degeneration process occurs because of annulus rupturing and decrease glycoprotein production by chondrocytes. This process contains of dehydration, protrusion, extrusions, and sequestration. [1] Posterior longitudinal ligamentous fibers in the lateral portion is more weak rather than medial portion, therefore most of the disk herniation are from posterolateral type, only 10% are far lateral and central herniation in little cases. [4],[5] Diagnosis of disk herniation is based on physical examination and paraclinical investigations. MRI has fundamental role in diagnosis. [2] MRI finding basis on the Los Angeles and Modics scale have five and three stages, respectively [Table 1].
Table 1: Disk herniation grading based on Los Angeles and Modics scales

Click here to view


Treatment modalities consist of complete resting, open surgery for root decompression, and physiotherapy. [6],[7] Recurrence is one of the most common complications that may happen in 5-15% of the operations [8] which defines as relapse of radicular pain with or without low back pain after primary operation. [9] It may occur at the same level or others and may be ipsilateral or contralateral. [10] There are many effective factors in recurrence including age, gender, occupation, weight, mechanical and traumatic stress, level of herniation, amount of evacuation, underlying deformity, and stenosis. [11]


  Materials and methods Top


This prospective study performed at Alzahra and Kashani hospitals during 2010-2011 in Isfahan. Conditions for entrance to the study were patients with history of single level operation that return with radicular pain ± low back pain and MRI described recurrence at the same level. Patients excluded from study had the presence of multilevel disk herniation, canal stenosis, if in the operation other technique except laminotomy or foraminotomy was performed, or if there was neurological deficit in primary examination, or if there was complication such as root injury or thecal sac rupture, or if there was evidence of diskitis, or spinal instability (in dynamic X-ray), or epidural scarring (in MRI with contrast), or if history of operation except of disk herniation at lumbar region. Basic information collected from patients after primary examination and MRI ± contrast and grading was determined before and after operation. Then data analyzed with SPSS version 20, Students and paired t-test, analysis of covariance.


  Results Top


Thirty-four patients with degenerative spinal disease evaluated. Mean age was 29.5 ± 4.5 year with range of 20-39 years. Nineteen patients were male (55.9%) and 15 were female (44.1%). Majority of them had range of 25-34 years. Mean age of males and females were 29.9 ± 5 and 28.9 ± 4.8, respectively. t-test showed no significant difference between men and women (P = 0.58). Average of body mass index (BMI) was 26.9 ± 2.9 with range of 22-32. Most of them had overweight or obesity (55.9% males, 20.6% females). The most common occupation was farming (38.2%). Eighteen patients were smoker (52.9%). [Table 2] shows the percentage of demographic features of the patients.
Table 2: Demographic features of the studied patients (%)

Click here to view


Level of operation was L 4-5 in 15 patients (44.1%), L 3-4 in four patients (11.8%), and L 5 -S 1 in 15 patients (44.1%). Side of operation was right at 17 patient and left at 17 patients. Type of operation was hemilaminectomy in nine patients and foraminotomy in 25 patients. Median time from beginning of radicular pain and primary operation was 5.1 ± 2.2 months with range of 2-10 months. Median time of radicular pain at secondary operation was 4.2 ± 1.2 with range of 2-6 months and based on paired t-test, there was significant difference in the first and second surgery time (P = 0.04) [Table 3]. In [Figure 1], the distribution of radicular pain time in two operations is shown. Upon t-test and analysis of covariance, none of these variable elements was effective on incidence of recurrent radicular leg pain (P > 0.05).
Figure 1: Mid, range, and percentile 25 and 75 of radicular pain before first and secondary operation

Click here to view
Table 3: Mean and standard deviation of radicullar leg pain based on variable condition

Click here to view


In [Figure 2] and [Figure 3] distribution of prevalence upon Modics and Los Angeles scale has been shown. Before the first operation, 14 patients (41.2%) had Modics grade Ⅰ, 12 (35.3%) and eight (23.5%) were in grade II and III, respectively; but after recurrence seven (20.6%), 17 (50%), and ten (29.4%) have been changed to grade Ⅰ, II, and III, respectively. According to Los Angeles criteria, before the first surgery ten patients (29.4%) had grade Ⅰ, 14 (41.2%) had grade II, six (17.6%) had grade III, 4 (11.7%) had grade ⅠV, and none had grade V; however, before secondary operation, six (17.6%), 16 (47.1%), six (17.6%), three (8.8%), and three (8.8%) patients had grade Ⅰ, II, III, ⅠV, and V, respectively. Modics criteria's grading differed from first to second surgery as incidence of grade Ⅰ changed from 41.2 to 20.6% (P = 0.007). However, Los Angeles scale did not show significant difference (P = 0.06).
Figure 2: Distribution of Modics scales before first and second operation

Click here to view
Figure 3: Distribution of Los Angeles scales before first and second operation

Click here to view


Mean volume of total herniated disk were 15.5 ± 3.4 cm 3 with range of 10-25 in the first surgery and 14 ± 3.3 cm 3 with range of 10-25 in secondary operation. Upon t-paired test, amount of total disk volume had significant difference (P = 0.001), but mean volume of herniated disk were 2.88 ± 0.84 cm 3 and 3.32 ± 1.12 cm 3 , respectively that had no significant difference (P = 0.062). In [Figure 4] and [Figure 5] distribution of herniated disk volume has been shown.
Figure 4: Mid, range, and percentile 25 and 75 of total (left) and herniated (right) volume disk at first and second surgery

Click here to view
Figure 5: Mid, range, and percentile 25 and 75 of total (left) and herniated (right) volume disk at first and second surgery

Click here to view


Median time between the first surgery and recurrence was 5.4 ± 1.2 with the range of 3-8 months. Twenty-three people (67.6%) had reinforcing factors but 11 patients (32.4%) did not have any factors.

Based on the Los Angeles scales, there was association about 35% between period from the first surgery and recurrence with disk grading, and upon Spearman association test this correlation was significant (P = 0.046). Although based on Modics scales there was an association in about 24% between this period and disk grading, this correlation was not significant (P = 0.17). The correlation between period and disk grading has been shown in [Figure 6] and [Figure 7].
Figure 6: Correlation between the disk herniation operation time and recurrence according to Modic and Los Angeles scales

Click here to view
Figure 7: Correlation between the disk herniation operation time and recurrence according to Modic and Los Angeles scales

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The total goal of this study was evaluation of correlation between degenerative changes grading of lumbar disk herniation based on the Los-Angeles and Modics scale with severity and time of lumbar disk recurrence. There are many studies, which used Modic scale to evaluate disk degenerative changes, but as we know, there is no study using these two scales all together. In this study, we evaluated 34 patients with history of disk operation that returned with recurrent disk herniation. Recurrence defined as occurrence of radicular leg pain and MRI findings upon Los Angeles and Modics criteria. In this study median time of radicular pain until first operation was 5.1 ± 2.2 months, mean time of recovery was 4.2 ± 1.2 months. Then symptoms restarted again. Period between beginning of pain and operation had significant difference at first and second surgery. Period at second was smaller. This could be because of severity of pain at recurrence or recourse after first surgery with unsatisfaction.

In a study by Aizawa et al., in 2012, it was shown that the reoperation rate of overall revised excisions was 0.62% at 1 year, 2.4% at 5 years, 4.4% at 10 years, and 5.9% after 17 years and that of real recurrent herniations was 0.5, 1.4, 2.1, and 2.8%, respectively after 15.7 years. They revealed that real recurrent herniations had shorter intervals between primary and revision surgeries. Male patients with surgery at a younger age carried a higher risk of reoperation. The reoperation rate of overall revised excisions was 0.62% at 1 year, 2.4% at 5 years, 4.4% at 10 years, and 5.9% after 17 years and was 0.5%, 1.4%, and 2.1%, respectively, and 2.8% after 15.7 years for real recurrent herniations. [12]

Our study showed that effective factors on radicular pain were age, gender, weight, and occupation; so old and obese people or who had higher physical activity predisposed to disk recurrence. Except of operative techniques, regarding hygiene factors, caution by patients and level of knowledge were most effective factors in disk recurrence. For determining of disk grading and need for reoperation there were two method, Los Angeles and Modics criteria's. Our study described as patient who had lower grade before first operation they had more presumption of recurrence, so 41.2 and 67.7% of patients had lower grade in Modics (grade Ⅰ) and Los Angeles (grade Ⅰ, II) scale.

During a follow-up study by Rahme et al., in 2010, the prevalence of MCs increased from 46.3 to 78%, and 26 patients (63.4%) had Type 2 lesions at the operated level. Among 22 patients without MCs, four (18.2%) converted to Type 1 and nine (40.9%) to Type 2. From the five Type 1 lesions, three (60%) converted to Type 2, and 2 (40%) remained Type 1 but their size were increased. [13]

In contrast, none of the 14 Type 2 changes converted to another type, although ten (71.4%) increased in extent. There were no reverse conversions to Type 0. This has similarity with observed by Barth et al., in the first 2 years after lumbar diskectomy and what was shown by Albert and Mannichel in the year following lumbar disk herniation. [14],[15]

Our finding is in concordance with Chin et al., who had documented similarly satisfactory results following lumbar discectomy in patients both with and without preoperative MCs. [16]

This is in disagreement with the findings of Barth et al., who documented a positive correlation between the increased prevalence of Modic lesions following lumbar diskectomy and postoperative low back pain.


  Conclusion Top


This finding showed that most of patients with recurrence had lower grade at first operation and had higher grade after. We offered at lower grade as surgeon expends more effort and time for complete evacuation, there is less likelihood of recurrence later. It may be because the disk degeneration progressed, therefore we recommend early mobilization of patients after surgery to avoid collapse of disk space and predispose recurrence.

 
  References Top

1.
Kang KK, Shen MS, Zhao W, Lurie JD, Razi AE. Retrolisthesis and lumbar disk herniation: A postoperative assessment of patient function. Spine J 2013;13:367-72.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Rönnberg K, Lind B, Zoega B, Gadeholt-Göthlin G, Halldin K, Gellerstedt M, et al. Peridural scar and its relation to clinical outcome: A randomised study on surgically treated lumbar disk herniation patients. Eur Spine J 2008;17:1714-20.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Handbook of Neurosurgery: Lumbar Disk Herniation. In: Greenberg M, editor. New York: Thieme Company; 2001. p. 300-2.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ehrendorfer S. Ipsilateral recurrent lumbar disk herniation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81:368.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ambrossi GL, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, et al. Recurrent lumbar disk herniation after single-level lumbar diskectomy: Incidence and health care cost analysis. Neurosurgery 2009;65:574-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Dora C, Schmid MR, Elfering A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Lumbar disk herniation: Do MR imaging findings predict recurrence after surgical diskectomy? Radiology 2005;235:562-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Lee JK, Amorosa L, Cho SK, Weidenbaum M, Kim Y. Recurrent lumbar disk herniation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010;18:327-37.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Hardy R. Youmans Neurological Surgery: Treatment of Disk Diease of the Lumbar Spine. In: Winn R, editor. New York: WB Saunders Company; 2004. p. 4507-10.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Hardy R. Youmans Neurological Surgery: Treatment of Disk Diease of the Lumbar Spine. In: Winn R, editor. New York: WB Saunders Company; 2004. p. 4514-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Handbook of Neurosurgery: Lumbar Disk Herniation. In: Greenberg M, editor. New York: Thieme Company; 2001. p. 295-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Swartz KR. Recurrent lumbar disk herniation. Am Assoc Neurol Surg 2003;15.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Aizawa T, Ozawa H, Kusakabe T, Nakamura T, Sekiguchi A, Takahashi A, et al. Reoperation for recurrent lumbar disk herniation: A study over a 20-year period in a Japanese population. J Orthop Sci 2012;17:107-13.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Rahme R, Moussa R, Bou-Nassif R, Maarrawi J, Rizk T, Nohra G, et al. What happens to Modic changes following lumbar diskectomy? Analysis of a cohort of 41 patients with a 3- to 5-year follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:562-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Albert HB, Manniche C. Modic changes following lumbar disk herniation. Eur Spine J 2007;16:977-82.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Barth M, Diepers M, Weiss C, Thomé C. Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiskectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy: Part 2: Radiographic evaluation and correlation with clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:273-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Jayarao M, Chin LS. Results after lumbar decompression with and without discectomy: comparison of the transspinous and conventional approaches.Neurosurgery 2010;66 (3 Suppl Operative):152-60.  Back to cited text no. 16
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


This article has been cited by
1 Risk factors for early reherniation after lumbar discectomy with or without annular closure: results of a multicenter randomized controlled study
Jenny C. Kienzler,Javier Fandino,Erik Van de Kelft,Sandro Eustacchio,Gerrit Joan Bouma
Acta Neurochirurgica. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Previous article  Next article
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1213    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded203    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal