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

Authors
Saied Abrishamkar 1
Mehdi Mahmoudkhani 1
Bahram Aminmansour 1
Amir Mahabadi 1
Shohreh Jafari 2
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
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

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
Advanced Biomedical Research
Volume 2014, November
November 2014
Pages 1-5