FROM:
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996; 21(3): 300–311
Schellhas, K. P., Smith, M. D., Gundry, C. R., Pollei, S. R.
From the Center for Diagnostic Imaging,
St. Louis Park, and the Minnesota Spine Center,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Study Design: Asymptomatic subjects and chronic head/neck
pain sufferers were studied with high–field magnetic resonance
imaging and cervical discography to compare and correlate both
tests.
Objectives: To assess the accuracy of magnetic resonance
imaging and discography in identifying the source(s) of cervical
discogenic pain.
Summary of Background Data: Previous retrospective
studies describe a generally poor correlation between magnetic
resonance imaging and provocative discography in the cervical
spine.
Methods: Ten lifelong asymptomatic subjects and 10
nonlitigious chronic neck/head pain patients underwent
discography at C3–C4 through C6–C7 after magnetic resonance
imaging. Disc morphology and provoked responses were recorded at
each level studied.
Results: Of 20 normal discs by magnetic resonance from
the asymptomatic volunteers, 17 proved to have painless anular
tears discographically. The average response per disc (N = 40)
for this group was 2.42, compared to 5.2 (N = 40) for the neck
pain group. In the pain patients, 11 discs appeared normal at
magnetic resonance imaging, whereas 10 of these proved to have
anular tears discographically. Two of the 10 proved concordantly
painful with intensity ratings of at least 7/10. Discographically
normal discs (N = 8) were never painful (both groups), whereas
intensely painful discs all exhibited tears of both the inner and outer aspects of the anulus.
Conclusions: Significant cervical disc anular tears often
escape magnetic resonance imaging detection, and magnetic
resonance imaging cannot reliably identify the source(s) of
cervical discogenic pain.
[Key words: discography, magnetic resonance imaging, cervical
spine, cervical pain, disc degeneration]