Short-term increase in discs' apparent diffusion is associated with pain and mobility improvements after spinal mobilization for low back pain

Paul Thiry, François Reumont, Jean-Michel Brismée, Frédéric Dierick, Paul Thiry, François Reumont, Jean-Michel Brismée, Frédéric Dierick

Abstract

Pain perception, trunk mobility and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) within all lumbar intervertebral discs (IVDs) were collected before and shortly after posterior-to-anterior (PA) mobilizations in 16 adults with acute low back pain. Using a pragmatic approach, a trained orthopaedic manual physical therapist applied PA mobilizations to the participants' spine, in accordance with his examination findings. ADC all was computed from diffusion maps as the mean of anterior (ADC ant ), middle (ADC mid ), and posterior (ADC post ) portions of the IVD. After mobilization, pain ratings and trunk mobility were significantly improved and a significant increase in ADC all values was observed. The greatest ADC all changes were observed at the L3-L4 and L4-L5 levels and were mainly explained by changes in ADC ant and ADC post , respectively. No significant changes in ADC were observed at L5-S1 level. The reduction in pain and largest changes in ADC observed at the periphery of the hyperintense IVD region suggest that increased peripheral random motion of water molecules is implicated in the IVD nociceptive response modulation. Additionally, ADC changes were observed at remote IVD anatomical levels that did not coincide with the PA spinal mobilization application level.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Decision tree used by the orthopaedic manual physical therapist (OMPT) to select the parameters of PA. Grades I & II corresponds to clinical group1, and grades III & IV to clinical 2 and 3, described by Maitland. Here, only grades III and IV were selected by the OMPT, ranging from III− − to III+ + and IV− − to IV+ +. When pain was greater than stiffness, the OMPT felt pain as the limiting factor of movement early in the ROM; when pain was equal to stiffness, the OMPT felt pain or stiffness as the limiting factor of movement in the ROM with both pain and stiffness present at a high level; and when stiffness was greater than pain, the OMPT felt stiffness as the limiting factor of movement in the end of the ROM with pain at a low level (P > 5/10). Anatomical level (L1-L2 to L5-S1) and location (central or unilateral) were chosen, by palpation during PA mobilization, as the most painful and stiffest sites. The slump test was considered as painful (P), when pain was radiating below the knees and not painful (no P) when not.
Figure 2
Figure 2
T2-weighted MRI cross section at L4-L5 IVD and ADC mappings in sagittal medial and parasagittal planes. Position of the 3 section planes are shown on T2 image (a) and their resultant ADC mappings in parasagittal right (b), sagittal medial (c), and parasagittal left (d) planes.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) T2-weighted image for an IVD classified as Pfirrmann’s grade 1 (arrow, left panel) and the corresponding diffusion-weighted image with the location of anterior, middle, and posterior ROIs used for the computation of ADC values (right panel). (b) Similar T2- and diffusion-weighted images for an IVD classified as Pfirrmann’s grade 3.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mean ADC values before and after intervention, for the 9 ROIs (#1 to #9) at the 5 anatomical levels (L1-L2 to L5-S1). The color code denotes the importance of ADC values, with cold colors (blue, cyan) for low values and warm colors (red, brown) for high values. Anterior (ant.), middle (mid.) and posterior (post.) portions of the IVDs along the sagittal medial (M, ROIs #2, #5, and #8), parasagittal left (L, ROIs #1, #4, and #7) and right planes (R, ROIs #3, #6, and #9). Values before the intervention are represented by the circles in the foreground and the ones after the intervention in the background.
Figure 5
Figure 5
(a) Bar chart of mean and SD results for ADCall changes after PA mobilizations expressed for each of the 5 anatomical level (1: L1-L2 to 5: L5-S1) and the primary level of application of mobilizations (PA level) on the participants (L1, L3, L4 and L5). (b) Bar chart of mean and SD results for ADCall changes after PA mobilizations expressed for each of the 5 anatomical level and the grade of mobilizations (PA grade) applied on the participants (III and IV). These two plots were only drawn for exploratory graphical analyses and the ADCall changes observed for PA mobilizations level of application and grades as a function of the anatomical levels were not tested statistically.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(a) Scree plot of percentage of explained variances after PCA. This plot shows the proportion of total variance in the data included in the PCA for each principal component (dimensions), in descending order of magnitude. The scree plot confirms the choice of the first three components to summarize the data (cumulative percentage of variance of 65.9%). (b) PCA results: correlation circle for dimensions 1 and 2. (c) PCA results: correlation circle for dimensions 1 and 3. (d) PCA results: correlation circle for dimensions 2 and 3. The contribution of each variable to the principal axes (‘contrib’) are coded in colors, with cold colors (turquoise blue) showing low contribution and warm colors (orange) high contribution. Dim 1 (mobility), 2 (pain), and 3 (diffusion) denotes the three first dimensions or components, explaining 34, 16.6, and 15.3% of total variance, respectively.

References

    1. Hoy D, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:968–974. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204428.
    1. Powers CM, Beneck GJ, Kulig K, Landel RF, Fredericson M. Effects of a single session of posterior-to-anterior spinal mobilization and press-up exercise on pain response and lumbar spine extension in people with nonspecific low back pain. Phys Ther. 2008;88:485–493. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070069.
    1. Rubinstein SM, Terwee CB, Assendelft WJJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain (review) Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD008880.
    1. Hengeveld, E. & Banks, K. (eds) Maitland’s vertebral manipulation, 8th edn (Churchill Livingstone, London, 2013).
    1. Beattie PF. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the musculoskeletal system: an emerging technology with potential to impact clinical decision making. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41:887–895. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3744.
    1. Kerttula LI, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient in thoracolumbar intervertebral discs of healthy young volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12:255–260. doi: 10.1002/1522-2586(200008)12:2<255::AID-JMRI7>;2-T.
    1. Kerttula L, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficients and T2 relaxation time measurements to evaluate disc degeneration. a quantitative mr study of young patients with previous vertebral fracture. Acta Radiol. 2001;42:585–591.
    1. Antoniou J, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of intervertebral discs related to matrix composition and integrity. Magn Reson. Imaging. 2004;22:963–972. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2004.02.011.
    1. Newitt DC, Majumdar S. Reproducibility and dependence on diffusion weighting of line scan diffusion in the lumbar intervertebral discs. J. Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21:482–488. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20286.
    1. Beattie PF, Morgan PS, Peters D. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of normal and degenerative lumbar intervertebral discs: a new method to potentially quantify the physiologic effect of physical therapy intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:42–49. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2008.2631.
    1. Beattie PF, Donley JW, Arnot CF, Miller R. The change in the diffusion of water in normal and degenerative lumbar intervertebral discs following joint mobilization compared to prone lying. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39:4–11. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2009.2994.
    1. Beattie PF, Arnot CF, Donley JW, Noda H, Bailey L. The immediate reduction in low back pain intensity following lumbar joint mobilization and prone press-ups is associated with increased diffusion of water in the L5-S1 intervertebral disc. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40:256–264. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2010.3284.
    1. Beattie PF, Butts R, Donley JW, Liuzzo DM. The within-session change in low back pain intensity following spinal manipulative therapy is related to differences in diffusion of water in the intervertebral discs of the upper lumbar spine and L5-S1. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44:19–29. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.4967.
    1. McKenzie, R. The lumbar spine: mechanical diagnosis and therapy (SpinalPublications, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1981).
    1. Kurunlahti M, Tervonen O, Vanharanta H, Ilkko E, Suramo I. Association of atherosclerosis with low back pain and the degree of disc degeneration. Spine. 1999;24:2080–2084. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199910150-00003.
    1. Tokuda O, Okada M, Fujita T, Matsunaga N. Correlation between diffusion in lumbar intervertebral disks and lumbar artery status: Evaluation with fresh blood imaging technique. J. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:185–191. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20785.
    1. Jackson AR, Gu WY. Transport properties of cartilaginous tissues. Curr Rheumatol Rev. 2009;5:40–50. doi: 10.2174/157339709787315320.
    1. Abbott, J. H. et al. Lumbar segmental mobility disorders: comparison of two methods of defining abnormal displacement kinematics in a cohort of patients with non-specific mechanical low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord7, 45 (2006).
    1. Kulig, K. et al. Segmental lumbar mobility in individuals with low back pain: in vivo assessment during manual and self-imposed motion using dynamic MRI. BMC Musculoskelet Disord8, 8 (2007).
    1. Hicks GE, Fritz JM, Delitto A, McGill SM. Preliminary development of a clinical prediction rule for determining which patients with low back pain will respond to a stabilization exercise program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1753–1762. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.033.
    1. Iatridis J, Nicoll S, Michalek A, Walter B, Gupta M. Role of biomechanics in intervertebral disc degeneration and regenerative therapies: what needs repairing in the disc and what are promising biomaterials for its repair? Spine J. 2013;13:243–262. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.12.002.
    1. Périé D, Korda D, Iatridis JC. Confined compression experiments on bovine nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosus: sensitivity of the experiment in the determination of compressive modulus and hydraulic permeability. J Biomech. 2005;38:2164–2171. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.10.002.
    1. Périé DS, Maclean JJ, Owen JP, Iatridis JC. Correlating material properties with tissue composition in enzymatically digested bovine annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus tissue. Ann Biomed Eng. 2006;34:769–777. doi: 10.1007/s10439-006-9091-y.
    1. Wilder DG, et al. Effect of spinal manipulation on sensorimotor functions in back pain patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2011;12:161. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-161.
    1. Cramer GD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging zygapophyseal joint space changes (gapping) in low back pain patients following spinal manipulation and side-posture positioning: a randomized controlled mechanisms trial with blinding. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2013;36:203–217. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2013.04.003.
    1. Bijur P, Silver W, Gallagher E. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8:1153–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x.
    1. Bouhassira D, et al. Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4) Pain. 2005;114:29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.12.010.
    1. Boureau F, Luu M, J. F. D, C. G. Construction of a questionnaire for the self-evaluation of pain using a list of qualifiers. Comparison with Melzack’s McGill pain questionnaire.[Article in french] Therapie. 1984;39:119–29.
    1. Spallone V, et al. Validation of DN4 as a screening tool for neuropathic pain in painful diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabet Med. 2012;29:578–585. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03500.x.
    1. Boureau F, Luu M, Doubrère J. Comparative study of the validity of four French McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) versions. Pain. 1992;50:59–65. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90112-O.
    1. Love A, Leboeuf C, Crisp T. Chiropractic chronic low back pain sufferers and self-report assessment methods. Part I. A reliability study of the Visual Analogue Scale, the Pain Drawing and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. J. Manip. Physiol Ther. 1989;12:21–25.
    1. Maitland GD. The slump test: examination and treatment. Aust J Physiother. 1985;31:215–219. doi: 10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60634-6.
    1. Frost M, Stuckey S, Smalley LA, Dorman G. Reliability of measuring trunk motions in centimeters. Phys Ther. 1982;62:1431–1437. doi: 10.1093/ptj/62.10.1431.
    1. Perret C, et al. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the fingertip-to-floor test. Arch Phys MedRehabil. 2001;82:1566–1570. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.26064.
    1. Olson, K. Manual physical therapy of the spine (Saunders, 2009).
    1. Kealey SM, et al. Assessment of apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and degenerated intervertebral lumbar disks: initial experience. Radiology. 2005;235:569–574. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2352040437.
    1. Pfirrmann CWA, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine. 2001;26:1873–1878. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200109010-00011.
    1. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
    1. Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116.
    1. Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1966;1:245–276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Urban JP, Winlove CP. Pathophysiology of the intervertebral disc and the challenges for MRI. J. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:419–432. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20874.
    1. Ojoawo AO, Oloagun MOB, Bamlwoye SO. Relationship between pain intensity and anthropometric indices in women with low back pain - a cross-sectional study. J. Phys Ther. 2011;3:45–51.
    1. Hussain SM, et al. Fat mass and fat distribution are associated with low back pain intensity and disability: results from a cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19:26. doi: 10.1186/s13075-017-1242-z.
    1. Chiradejnant A, Latimer J, Maher CG, Stepkovitch N. Does the choice of spinal level treated during posteroanterior (pa) mobilisation affect treatment outcome? Physiother Theory Pract. 2002;18:165–174. doi: 10.1080/09593980290058544.
    1. Goodsell M, Lee M, Latimer J. Short-term effects of lumbar posteroanterior mobilization in individuals with low-back pain. J. Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23:332–342. doi: 10.1016/S0161-4754(00)90208-2.
    1. Bogduk N. The innervation of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983;8:286–93. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198304000-00009.
    1. Coppes, M. H., Marani, E., Thomeer, R. T. & Groen, G. J. Innervation of “painful” lumbar discs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22, 2342–2349; discussion 2349–2350 (1997).
    1. Nguyen AM, et al. Noninvasive quantification of human nucleus pulposus pressure with use of T1p-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J. Bone Jt. Surg Am. 2008;90:796–802. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00667.
    1. Niinimäki J, et al. Association between visual degeneration of intervertebral discs and the apparent diffusion coefficient. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27:641–647. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.10.005.
    1. McCollam RL, Benson CJ. Effects of postero-anterior mobilization on lumbar extension and flexion. J Man Manip Ther. 1993;1:134–141. doi: 10.1179/jmt.1993.1.4.134.
    1. Shum GL, Tsung BY, Lee RY. The immediate effect of posteroanterior mobilization on reducing back pain and the stiffness of the lumbar spine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:673–679. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.020.
    1. Shah SG, Kage V. Effect of seven sessions of posterior-to-anterior spinal mobilisation versus prone press-ups in non-specific low back pain - randomized clinical trial. J Clin Diag Res. 2016;10:YC10–3.
    1. Adams MA, Roughley PJ. What is intervertebral disc degeneration, and what causes it? Spine. 2006;31:2151–2161. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000231761.73859.2c.
    1. Ferrara L, Triano JJ, Sohn M-J, Song E, Lee DD. A biomechanical assessment of disc pressures in the lumbosacral spine in response to external unloading forces. Spine J. 2005;5:548–553. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.03.012.
    1. Kulig K, Landel R, Powers CM. Assessment of lumbar spine kinematics using dynamic MRI: a proposed mechanism of sagittal plane motion induced by manual posterior-to-anterior mobilization. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34:57–64. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2004.34.2.57.
    1. Niu G, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and abnormal pattern of intervertebral lumbar discs: initial experience. J Biomed Res. 2011;25:197–203. doi: 10.1016/S1674-8301(11)60026-2.
    1. Wu N, et al. Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2 relaxation time variation patterns in assessment of age and disc level related intervertebral disc changes. Plos One. 2013;8:e69052. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069052.
    1. Mitchell UH, Beattie PF, Bowden J, Larson R, Wang H. Age-related differences in the response of the L5-S1 intervertebral disc to spinal traction. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017;31:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.06.004.
    1. Violas P, et al. A method to investigate intervertebral disc morphology from MRI in early idiopathic scoliosis: a preliminary evaluation in a group of 14 patients. Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;23:475–479. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2004.12.004.
    1. Binch, A. L. A. et al. Nerves are more abundant than blood vessels in the degenerate human intervertebral disc. Arthritis Res Ther17, 370 (2015).
    1. Abdollah, V., Parent, E. C. & Battié, M. C. Is the location of the signal intensity weighted centroid a reliable measurement of fluid displacement within the disc? Biomed Tech (Berl), 10.1515/bmt-2016-0178 (2017).
    1. Nachemson A, Elfström G. Intravital dynamic pressure measurements in lumbar discs. a study of common movements, maneuvers and exercises. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1970;1:1–40.
    1. Wilke H, Neef P, Caimi M, Hoogland T, Claes L. New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:755–62. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199904150-00005.
    1. Alexander L, Hancock E, Agouris I, Smith F, MacSween A. The response of the nucleus pulposus of the lumbar intervertebral discs to functionally loaded positions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:1508–12. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318067dccb.
    1. Fryer JC, Quon JA, Smith FW. Magnetic resonance imaging and stadiometric assessment of the lumbar discs after sitting and chair-care decompression exercise: a pilot study. Spine J. 2010;10:297–305. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.01.009.
    1. van der Werf M, Lezuo P, Maissen O, van Donkelaar CC, Ito K. Inhibition of vertebral endplate perfusion results in decreased intervertebral disc intranuclear diffusive transport. J Anat. 2007;211:769–774. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00816.x.
    1. Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25:2940–2953. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe