scholarly journals Population-specific Conclusions about Modic Endplate Changes

Radiology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 255 (2) ◽  
pp. 662-663
Author(s):  
Neil D. Steinmetz
2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (9) ◽  
pp. 1926-1934 ◽  
Author(s):  
Egon Perilli ◽  
Ian H. Parkinson ◽  
Le-Hoa Truong ◽  
Kuan C. Chong ◽  
Nicola L. Fazzalari ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannu T. Huhdanpaa ◽  
W. Katherine Tan ◽  
Sean D. Rundell ◽  
Pradeep Suri ◽  
Falgun H. Chokshi ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1013
Author(s):  
Seoung Oh Yang ◽  
Ki Nam Lee ◽  
Jong Cheul ◽  
Sun Seob Choi ◽  
Yung Il Lee ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ursula Schwarz-Nemec ◽  
Klaus M. Friedrich ◽  
Christoph Stihsen ◽  
Felix K. Schwarz ◽  
Siegfried Trattnig ◽  
...  

On magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, Modic type 1 (MT1) endplate changes and infectious spondylodiscitis share similar findings. Therefore, this study investigated vertebral bone marrow and endplate changes to enable their differentiation. The lumbar spine MR examinations of 91 adult patients were retrospectively included: 39 with MT1; 19 with early spondylodiscitis without abscess; and 33 with advanced spondylodiscitis with abscess. The assessment included percentage of bone marrow edema on sagittal short tau inversion recovery images, and the signal ratio of edema to unaffected bone and endplate contour (normal; irregular, yet intact; blurred; destructive) on sagittal unenhanced T1-weighted images. Differences were tested for statistical significance by Chi-square test and mixed model analysis of variance. The MR diagnostic accuracy in differentiating MT1 and spondylodiscitis was assessed by cross-tabulation and receiver-operating characteristic analysis. The endplate contours, edema extents, and T1-signal ratios of MT1 (extent, 31.96%; ratio, 0.83) were significantly different (p < 0.001) from early spondylodiscitis (56.42%; 0.60), and advanced spondylodiscitis (91.84%; 0.61). The highest diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, 94.87%; specificity, 94.23%; accuracy, 94.51%) in identifying MT1 was provided by an irregular, yet intact endplate contour. This may be a useful MR feature for the differentiation between MT1 and spondylodiscitis, particularly in its early stage.


2018 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Barth ◽  
Christel Weiß ◽  
Gerrit J. Bouma ◽  
Richard Bostelmann ◽  
Adisa Kursumovic ◽  
...  

Bone ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. S66
Author(s):  
Heather Ting Ma ◽  
James F. Griffith ◽  
Yixiang Wang ◽  
Anthony W.L. Kwok ◽  
Ping Chung Leung ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 209 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Thomas Crockett ◽  
Brendan Sean Kelly ◽  
Susie van Baarsel ◽  
Eoin Carl Kavanagh

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Christine Kienzler ◽  
Sofia Rey ◽  
Oliver Wetzel ◽  
Hermien Atassi ◽  
Sabrina Bäbler ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: An annular closure device (ACD) could potentially prevent recurrent herniation by blocking larger annular defects after limited microdiscectomy (LMD). The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence of endplate changes (EPC) and outcome after LMD with additional implantation of an ACD to prevent reherniation. Methods: This analysis includes data from a) RCT study-arm of patients undergoing LMD with ACD implantation and b) additional patients undergoing ACD implantation at our institution. Clinical findings (VAS,ODI), radiological outcome (reherniation, implant integrity, volume of (EPC) and risk factors for EPC were assessed. Results: Seventy-two patients (37men, 47±11.63yo) underwent LMD and ACD implantation between 2013-2016. A total of 71 (99%) patients presented with some degree of EPC during the follow-up period (14.67±4.77months). In the multivariate regression analysis, localization of the anchor was the only significant predictor of EPC (p=0.038). The largest EPC measured 4.2 cm3. Reherniation was documented in 17 (24%) patients (symptomatic: n=10; asymptomatic: n=7). Six (8.3%) patients with symptomatic reherniation underwent rediscectomy. Implant failure was documented in 19 (26.4%) patients including anchor head breakage (n=1, 1.3%), dislocation of the whole device (n=5, 6.9%), and mesh dislocation into the spinal canal (n=13, 18%). Mesh subsidence within the EPC was documented in 15 (20.8%) patients. Seven (9.7%) patients underwent explantation of the entire, or parts of the device.Conclusion: Clinical improvement after LMD and ACD implantation was proven in our study. High incidence and volume of EPC did not correlate with clinical outcome. Mechanical friction of the polymer mesh with the endplate is most likely the cause of EPC after ACD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document