Advertisement

The Relationship Between MRI Parameters and Spinal Compressive Loading

  • Jie Zhou
  • Fadi Fathallah
  • Jeffery Walton
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 820)

Abstract

Intervertebral disc (IVD) is a leading source of Low back pain (LBP). The health and functions of the IVD are determined by the inherent biomechanical properties of the IVD and its interaction with external mechanical loading. Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) parameters have the potential in detecting loading-induced changes in biomechanical properties of the IVD. T, T2 and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) were obtained with a 7T MRI scanner from 20 functional spinal units (FSU) before and after receiving compressive loading of 263.27 N for 60 min. Compressive loading was found to significantly reduce T and T2 but not ADC, indicating that T and T2 had the potential to detect loading-induced changes in biomechanical properties of the IVD. These parameters may provide more sensitivity and specificity to understand the injury mechanism of the IVD and contribute to early diagnosis of IVD degeneration.

Keywords

MRI parameters Spinal compressive loading Intervertebral disc 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This project was partially funded by the Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (WCAHS) with NIOSH Grant No. 2U54OH007550.

References

  1. 1.
    Fourney DR, Andersson G, Arnold PM, Dettori J, Cahana A, Fehlings MG, Chapman JR (2011) Chronic low back pain: a heterogeneous condition with challenges for an evidence-based approach. Spine 36:S1–S9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brisby H (2006) Pathology and possible mechanisms of nervous system response to disc degeneration. J Bone Joint Surg 88(suppl 2):68–71Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Panjabi MM (2006) A hypothesis of chronic back pain: ligament subfailure injuries lead to muscle control dysfunction. Eur Spine J 15(5):668–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou J, Ning X, Fathallah F (2016) Differences in lumbopelvic rhythm between trunk flexion and extension. Clin Biomech 32:274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ning X, Zhou J, Dai B, Jaridi M (2014) The assessment of material handling strategies in dealing with sudden loading: the effects of load handling position on trunk biomechanics. Appl Ergon 45(6):1399–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams MA, Roughley PJ (2006) What is intervertebral disc degeneration, and what causes it. Spine 31(18):2151–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Urban JP, Winlove CP (2007) Pathophysiology of the intervertebral disc and the challenges for MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 25(2):419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noguchi M, Gooyers CE, Karakolis T, Noguchi K, Callaghan JP (2016) Is intervertebral disc pressure linked to herniation?: an in-vitro study using a porcine model. J Biomech 49(9):1824–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nikkhoo M, Kuo Y, Hsu Y, Khalaf K, Haghpanahi M, Parnianpour M, Wang J (2015) Time-dependent response of intact intervertebral disc–In Vitro and In-Silico study on the effect of loading mode and rate. Eng Solid Mech 3(1):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beckstein JC, Sen S, Schaer TP, Vresilovic EJ, Elliott DM (2008) Comparison of animal discs used in disc research to human lumbar disc: axial compression mechanics and glycosaminoglycan content. Spine 33(6):E166–E173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ (1993) Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 36(7):749–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levine, H., & Slade, L. (Eds.). (2013). Water Relationships in Foods: Advances in the 1980 s and Trends for the 1990 s (Vol. 302). Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raj PP (2008) Intervertebral disc: anatomy-physiology-pathophysiology-treatment. Pain Pract 8(1):18–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johannessen W, Auerbach JD, Wheaton AJ, Kurji A, Borthakur A, Reddy R, Elliott DM (2006) Assessment of human disc degeneration and proteoglycan content using T1ρ-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 31(11):1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Souza RB, Kumar D, Calixto N, Singh J, Schooler J, Subburaj K, Majumdar S (2014) Response of knee cartilage T1rho and T2 relaxation times to in vivo mechanical loading in individuals with and without knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22(10):1367–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takashima H, Takebayashi T, Yoshimoto M, Terashima Y, Tsuda H, Ida K, Yamashita T (2012) Correlation between T2 relaxation time and intervertebral disk degeneration. Skeletal Radiol 41(2):163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffith JF, Wang YXJ, Antonio GE, Choi KC, Yu A, Ahuja AT, Leung PC (2007) Modified Pfirrmann grading system for lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 32(24):E708–E712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stokes IA, Iatridis JC (2004) Mechanical conditions that accelerate intervertebral disc degeneration: overload versus immobilization. Spine 29(23):2724–2732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Antoniou J, Demers CN, Beaudoin G, Goswami T, Mwale F, Aebi M, Alini M (2004) Apparent diffusion coefficient of intervertebral discs related to matrix composition and integrity. Magn Reson Imaging 22(7):963–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological and Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of California DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.NMR Facility, University of California DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations