Abstract
Purpose:
Although an association has been suggested between disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP), some DD is thought to be an age-related change unrelated to symptoms. Age-inappropriate DD, however, may be associated with LBP. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in LBP and LBP-related quality of life between age-appropriate and age-inappropriate DD, as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Participants and methods:
In this cross-sectional study, degenerative change in the lumbar intervertebral discs of 382 subjects (age range, 27-82 years) was evaluated by MRI. Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) scores were assigned using the Schneiderman classification, as the sum of grades for all intervertebral levels (0-15). We classified subjects into three groups according to age and DDD score: Low DD (mild DD relative to age), Appropriate (age-appropriate DD), and High DD (severe DD relative to age). We compared the three groups in terms of LBP prevalence, LBP intensity, LBP-specific quality of life (QOL) according to the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), and the Short Form-36 Item Health Survey (SF-36).
Results:
Of 382 subjects, there were 35% in the Low DD group, 54% in the Appropriate group, and 11% in the High DD group. There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of prevalence of LBP, LBP intensity, RDQ score, or SF-36 score.
Conclusion:
No association was found between age-inappropriate DD (Low or High DD group) and age-appropriate DD (Appropriate group) in terms of prevalence of LBP, LBP intensity, RDQ, or SF-36.
Keywords: cross-sectional study, disc degeneration, low back pain, age-related
Introduction
Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent in developed countries, where two thirds of adults have been affected by back pain1). LBP is associated with high health care costs and the loss of productivity, and is considered to have an economic impact2). In addition, it is widely known that LBP affects depression3) and quality of life (QOL). Therefore, it is important to investigate the causes of LBP.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-invasive and accurate method for morphological evaluation of the lumbar spine4). It is appropriate for assessing the association between the morphological findings on imaging and LBP5), and is commonly performed in current LBP practice. Disc degeneration (DD) can be visualized as an abnormal finding on MRI. Histologically, DD is a state of reduced water content and motility due to reduced proteoglycan content and fibrosis in the nucleus pulposus4,6). Such degeneration is apparent as decreased T2 signal intensity in the disc and narrowing of the intervertebral height on MRI. Intervertebral DD is known to involve both age-related changes and tissue damage brought on by combined stresses, including those from mechanical, nutritional, and chemical factors7,8). However, the relationship between DD and LBP remains controversial. Numerous previous studies have suggested that DD on MRI is related to the presence of LBP5,9-13). DD is commonly observed as age-related change in asymptomatic subjects14-16), but abnormal DD that is not appropriate for age may be symptomatic. Previous cross-sectional studies in the general population have suggested that DD is an age-related phenomenon17-20), although a small percentage of young people have multiple DD whereas some older people do not have DD19). It has been suggested that some DD is related to factors other than age, such as genetics, nutrition, and trauma5,21,22). Several case-control studies in young subjects have suggested a relationship between DD and LBP5,23,24). Advanced DD in young people is thought to indicate pathological degeneration that may be associated with symptoms. Several problems can be identified in previous studies of the relationship between DD seen on imaging and LBP. The first is the evaluation of symptomatic and asymptomatic DD as a single category. Age-related DD in the elderly and more rapidly progressive DD in the young may have different pathologies and should be evaluated separately. The lack of assessment of the characteristics of LBP is another problem. Complaints of LBP vary widely and are reported to be associated with psychosocial factors25). LBP due to psychosocial factors may not be based on abnormal findings on imaging. In addition to the presence or absence of LBP, it is also important to assess LBP-specific QOL and health-related QOL. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between LBP and DD in community residents using a detailed assessment of LBP, and to investigate whether there is an association between age-appropriate and age-inappropriate DD and LBP.
Methods
This study was approved by the ethics committee of our university. In all cases, informed consent was documented in writing.
Participants
In 2004, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among community residents of Ina Village, Tateiwa Village, and Tadami Town, all in a mountainous inland area of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. In conjunction with a general health checkup─part of Japan’s system of universal health care─1862 residents agreed to participate in this study, of whom 459 underwent MRI of the lumbar spine26). Those with MRI examinations that were insufficient for assessment due to image artifacts or blurring, or who had not fully completed the questionnaire, were excluded from the study. A final total of 382 subjects were included in the study (Figure 1.), 119 males and 263 females, with mean age of 64.5 years (range, 27-82 years). The largest age group consisted of those in their 70s. Demographic characteristics including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and smoking status (Brinkman index; BI)27) were recorded.
Fig. 1.
Participants and exclusion criteria
A questionnaire survey and physical examination were administered to community residents, and lumbar spine MRI imaging was performed. After applying the exclusion criteria, 382 patients were included in the analysis.
LBP evaluation
In the questionnaire, the participant’s current presence or absence of LBP was recorded as LBP (+) or LBP (–), respectively; the duration of LBP was described as less than 1 week, from 1 week up to 1 month, from l month up to 3 months, or 3 months and beyond. Whether LBP mildly or significantly impaired activities of daily living (ADL) was recorded as no, mild, or severe ADL disturbance. Degree of LBP was evaluated by a 1 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS, with 0 for no pain, and 10 for maximum pain imaginable). Japanese versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) for LBP-specific QOL28,29) and the medical outcomes study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) for general health-related QOL30-32) were also evaluated. In this study, norm-based scores standardized by age and sex were used in the RDQ, and eight domains were used in the SF-36 for the reason that norm-based scores are useful for making within-group comparisons in groups of different ages and sex. Norm-based scores are available for people aged 20-79 years in the Japanese population. In norm-based scores, a score of 50 is the national norm, and a score below 50 indicates QOL below the national norm29,30).
MRI evaluation
MRI was performed using one of two scanners: 0.2T Airis Mate (Hitachi Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) or 1T Excelart with Pianissimo (Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation, Tochigi, Japan). Sagittal T2-weighted images were acquired with 6 mm slice thickness (Airis Mate: turbo spin echo [TSE]; repetition time [TR] / echo time [TE], 3000 / 125; Excelart: TSE; TR / TE, 3300 / 110).
Degeneration in each of the five intervertebral discs from L1-2 to L5-S1 was evaluated using the Schneiderman classification33) (Table 1). Disc degeneration disease (DDD) score was recorded as the sum of the five levels (scored 0-15)34). The images were evaluated by one orthopedic surgeon (TW). To measure intra-examiner reliability, 30 images were randomly selected and remeasured at intervals of one month or longer.
Table 1.
Schneiderman classification
| Definition of MRI Signal Intensity | |
|---|---|
| Term | Definition |
| Normal | Normal height and signal intensity |
| Intermediate | Speckled pattern or heterogeneous decreased signal intensity |
| Marked | Diffuse loss of signal |
| Absent | Signal void |
Method of group categorization
The participants were classified into three groups (Low DD, Appropriate, or High DD) according to combined age and DDD score. Age was classified as young (< 50 years), moderate (50-64 years), or older (≥ 65 years). DDD score was classified as mild (1-6), moderate (7-10), or severe (11-15), using analysis of variance with the cutoff value showing the highest F value, based on the methods of Serlin35) and Jensen36).
The three groups contained subjects with the following characteristics, as shown in Figure 2. Low DD group: moderate age with mild DD, older age with mild or moderate DD. Appropriate group: younger age with mild DD, moderate age with moderate DD, older age with severe DD. High DD group: younger age with mild or severe DD, moderate age with severe DD37).
Fig. 2.
Classification based on age and disc degeneration
Participants were graded according to age and DDD score (center panels) and then assigned into the following three groups using the table on the right: Low DD, Appropriate, and High DD.
We compared the prevalence of LBP, duration of LBP, degree of LBP, LBP-specific QOL, and health-related QOL among the three groups.
Statistical analysis
The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for continuous variables, and the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of nominal variables. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate the risk of LBP associated with age-related DD. Sex, BMI, and BI were used as the confounding variables. P values less than 5% were considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics V25 for Windows (IBV Japan Inc., Tokyo) and R version 3.6.3 (Copyright ©2020 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Platform: 1386-w64-mingw32 / i386 [32-bit]).
Results
The kappa coefficient for intra-examiner reliability was 0.774, which was judged as substantive and acceptable38).
Table 2 lists the demographic data. Eighty-five (22%) of the participants had LBP. There were no statistically significant differences between the LBP (+) and LBP (–) groups in terms of age, sex, BMI, or smoking. In the SF-36, bodily pain (BP) (p=0.029) and general health (GH) (p=0.001) were significantly lower in the LBP (+) group than the LBP (–) group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean value or distribution of DDD score between these groups.
Table 2.
Demographic data
| (n, [%]) |
Total
(n=382) |
LBP (+)
(n=85, [22]) |
LBP (–)
(n=297, [78]) |
p value |
| Age (mean, [95%CI]) | 64.5 (63.4-65.6) | 66.4 (64.4-68.4) | 63.9 (62.7-65.2) | 0.079 |
| Age (years; n, [%]) | 0.139 | |||
| < 50 years | 36 (10) | 5 (6) | 31 (10) | |
| 50-65 years | 124 (32) | 23 (27) | 101 (34) | |
| ≥ 65 years | 222 (58) | 57 (67) | 165 (56) | |
| Sex (n, [%]) | 0.583 | |||
| male | 121 (32) | 29 (34) | 92 (31) | |
| female | 261 (68) | 56 (66) | 205 (69) | |
| BMI (n, [%]) | 0.566 | |||
| < 18.5 | 19 (6) | 3 (4) | 16 (6) | |
| 18.5-24.5 | 222 (68) | 47 (64) | 175 (69) | |
| 25-29.5 | 79 (24) | 22 (30) | 57 (23) | |
| ≥ 30 | 5 (2) | 1 (1) | 4 (2) | |
|
Smoking (BI > 0)
(n, [%]) |
91 (24) | 19 (22) | 72 (24) | 0.701 |
|
SF-36 norm-based score
(mean, [95%CI]) |
||||
| PF | 49.7 (48.2-51.2) | 49.7 (47.3-52.1) | 49.7 (48.3-51.2) | 0.455 |
| RP | 47.9 (46.7-49.1) | 46.1 (43.2-48.9) | 48.4 (47.0-49.7) | 0.106 |
| BP | 46.8 (45.6-48.0) | 44.0 (41.5-46.5) | 47.5 (46.2-48.9) | 0.029 |
| GH | 48.3 (47.3-49.2) | 45.4 (43.4-47.4) | 49.1 (48.0-50.1) | 0.001 |
| VT | 50.4 (49.3-51.5) | 48.9 (46.1-51.6) | 50.7 (49.6-51.9) | 0.248 |
| SF | 49.9 (48.8-51.1) | 48.1 (45.1-51.1) | 50.4 (49.2-51.7) | 0.314 |
| RE | 48.3 (47.0-49.5) | 46.1 (43.0-49.2) | 48.8 (47.4-50.1) | 0.358 |
| MH | 49.1 (48.0-50.1) | 47.5 (45.1-49.9) | 49.5 (48.4-50.7) | 0.166 |
| DDD score (mean, [95%CI]) | 9.2 (8.9-9.5) | 9.6 (9.0-10.3) | 9.1 (8.7-9.4) | 0.197 |
|
Distribution of DDD score
(n, [%]) |
0.397 | |||
| mild: 1-6 | 68 (18) | 11 (13) | 57 (19) | |
| moderate: 7-10 | 178 (46) | 43 (51) | 135 (46) | |
| severe: 11-15 | 136 (36) | 31 (36) | 105 (35) |
LBP: low back pain, CI: confidence interval, BMI: body mass index, BI: Brinkman index, PF: physical functioning, RP: role physical, BP: bodily pain, GH: general health, VT: vitality, SF: social functioning, RE: role emotional, MH: mental health, DDD: disc degenerative disease.
Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of LBP according to sex. Of the 85 subjects in the LBP (+) group, 29 were male and 56 were female. Mean age was significantly higher in females than in males (68.4 vs 62.4 years, p = 0.026). Eighteen males (62%) and 44 females (79%) had LBP for more than 3 months. There was no significant difference in mean NRS of LBP between males and females (5.6 and 5.0, respectively; p = 0.359) or in mean norm-based RDQ score (48.6 and 47.6, respectively; p = 0.522). A norm-based RDQ score < 50 points (i.e., lower than the national norm) was higher in females than males (63% vs 45%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.119). DDD score was significantly more severe in females than in males (p = 0.047).
Table 3.
Characteristics of LBP according to sex
| (n, [%]) |
Total
(n=85) |
Males
(n=29, [34]) |
Females
(n=56, [66]) |
p value |
| Age (years; mean, [95%CI]) | 66.4 (64.4-68.4) | 62.4 (58-66.8) | 68.4 (66.5-70.4) | 0.026 |
| LBP (n, [%]) | 0.024 | |||
| < 1 week | 8 (9) | 1 (3) | 7 (13) | |
| 1 week up to 1 month | 12 (14) | 8 (28) | 4 (7) | |
| 1 month up to 3 months | 3 (4) | 2 (6) | 1 (2) | |
| ≥ 3 months | 62 (73) | 18 (62) | 44 (79) | |
| NRS (mean, [95%CI]) | 5.2 (4.67-5.75) | 5.6 (4.74-6.43) | 5.0 (4.31-5.72) | 0.359 |
|
Norm-based RDQ score
(mean, [95%CI]) |
48.0 (45.8-50.1) | 48.6 (44.5-52.7) | 47.6 (45.1-50.2) | 0.522 |
|
Norm-based RDQ score
(n, [%]) |
0.119 | |||
| < 50 | 48 (56) | 13 (45) | 35 (63) | |
| ≥ 50 | 37 (44) | 16 (55) | 21 (37) | |
|
Distribution of DDD score
(n, [%]) |
0.047 | |||
| mild: 1-6 | 11 (13) | 7 (24) | 4 (7) | |
| moderate: 7-10 | 43 (51) | 15 (52) | 28 (50) | |
| severe: 11-15 | 31 (36) | 7 (24) | 24 (43) |
Females were significantly older and had a higher prevalence of LBP and severe DD.
CI: confidence interval, LBP: low back pain, NRS: numerical rating scale,
RDQ: Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, DDD: disc degenerative disease
Table 4 lists the demographic data of the three groups based on age and DD. There were 206 participants (54%) in the Appropriate group, 134 (35%) in the Low DD group, and 42 (11%) in the High DD group. There was no significant difference among the groups in terms of sex, BMI, smoking status, or any of the eight domains of the SF-36.
Table 4.
Demographic data of age-related DD groups
| (n, [%]) |
Low DD group
(n=134, [35]) |
Appropriate group
(n=206, [54]) |
High DD group
(n=42, [11]) |
p value |
| Sex (n, [%]) | 0.088 | |||
| Male | 52 (39) | 57 (28) | 12 (29) | |
| Female | 82 (61) | 149 (72) | 30 (71) | |
| BMI (n, [%]) | 0.768 | |||
| < 18.5 | 8 (7) | 10 (6) | 1 (3) | |
| 18.5-24.5 | 84 (72) | 113 (65) | 25 (71) | |
| 25-29.5 | 24 (21) | 47 (27) | 8 (23) | |
| ≥ 30 | 1 (1) | 3 (2) | 1 (3) | |
| missing | 17 | 33 | 7 | |
| Smoking (BI > 0) (n, [%]) | 36 (32) | 49 (30) | 6 (17) | 0.239 |
| missing | 21 | 40 | 7 | |
|
SF-36 norm-based score
(mean, [95%CI]) |
||||
| PF | 50.6 (48.4-52.7) | 49.2 (47.4-50.9) | 49.5 (45.9-53.0) | 0.62 |
| RP | 48.9 (46.9-50.8) | 46.9 (45.1-48.7) | 49.4 (46.1-52.8) | 0.335 |
| BP | 47.7 (45.7-49.6) | 45.5 (43.8-47.2) | 49.5 (45.9-53.0) | 0.091 |
| GH | 49.3 (47.7-50.8) | 47.7 (46.4-49.0) | 48.2 (45.3-51.0) | 0.492 |
| VT | 51.6 (49.7-53.4) | 49.2 (47.7-50.8) | 51.3 (48.6-54.1) | 0.07 |
| SF | 50.1 (48.0-52.1) | 49.8 (48.1-51.4) | 50.1 (46.8-53.4) | 0.35 |
| RE | 49.5 (47.5-51.5) | 47.0 (45.2-48.8) | 49.9 (46.0-53.8) | 0.77 |
| MH | 50.0 (48.3-51.6) | 48.7 (47.2-50.2) | 48.6 (45.3-51.8) | 0.665 |
There were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of age, sex, BMI, smoking, or any of the eight domains of SF-36.
DD: disc degeneration, BMI: body mass index, BI: Brinkman index, PF: physical functioning, RP: role physical, BP: bodily pain, GH: general health, VT: vitality, SF: social functioning, RE: role emotional, MH: mental health
Table 5 lists the characteristics of LBP according to group. The prevalence of LBP was 34 (25%) in the Low DD group, 44 (21%) in the Appropriate group, and 7 (17%) in the High DD group (no significant difference, p = 0.408). The most common duration of LBP was > 3 months in all three groups (no significant difference). The prevalence of LBP causing mild ADL disturbance was 22 (65%) in the Low DD group, 28 (64%) in the Appropriate group, and 5 (71%) in the High DD group (no significant difference, p = 0.844). The RDQ norm-based score was 48 in the Low DD group, 48 in the Appropriate group, and 47 in the High DD group (no significant difference, p = 0.775). The prevalence of patients with a norm-based RDQ score < 50 was 22 (65%) in the Low DD group, 22 (50%) in the Appropriate group, and 4 (57%) in the High DD group (no significant difference).
Table 5.
Characteristics of LBP according to age-related DD group
| (n, [%]) |
Low DD group
(n=134, [35]) |
Appropriate group
(n=206, [54]) |
High DD group
(n=42, [11]) |
p value |
| LBP (n) | 34 (25) | 44 (21) | 7 (17) | 0.408 |
| Duration (n, [%]) | 0.817 | |||
| < 1 week | 4 (12) | 4 (9) | 0 (0) | |
| 1 week up to 1 month | 3 (9) | 7 (16) | 2 (29) | |
| 1 month up to 3 months | 1 (3) | 2 (5) | 0 (0) | |
| ≥ 3 months | 26 (76) | 31 (70) | 5 (71) | |
| ADL disturbance (n, [%]) | 0.844 | |||
| none | 2 (6) | 5 (11) | 1 (14) | |
| mild | 22 (65) | 28 (64) | 5 (71) | |
| severe | 10 (29) | 11 (25) | 1 (14) | |
|
Norm-based RDQ score
(95%CI) |
48.0 (45.1-50.7) | 48.3 (44.8-51.7) | 46.5 (37.1-56.0) | 0.775 |
|
Norm-based RDQ score
(n, [%]) |
0.43 | |||
| < 50 | 22 (65) | 22 (50) | 4 (57) | |
| ≥ 50 | 12 (35) | 22 (50) | 3 (43) |
There were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of prevalence of LBP, ADL disturbance, or Norm-based DRQ score.
LBP: low back pain, DD: disc degeneration, ADL: activities of daily living, RDQ: Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire
Table 6 lists the results of multiple logistic regression analysis of the effect of age-related DD on LBP in the three groups. LBP was examined for three categories: Category 1, all LBP versus no LBP; Category 2, LBP duration less than 3 months versus no LBP; Category 3, LBP duration of 3 months or more versus no LBP. Any age-related DD had no effect on the prevalence of any of LBP, LBP duration < 3 months, or LBP duration ≥ 3 months.
Table 6.
Logistic regression analysis of age-related DD and LBP
|
Category 1
All LBP |
Category 2
LBP < 3 months |
Category 3
LBP ≥ 3 months |
|||||||||
| OR | 95%CI | p value | OR | 95%CI | p value | OR | 95%CI | p value | |||
|
Age-related DD
group |
|||||||||||
| Appropriate | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| High DD | 0.69 | 0.265-1.798 | 0.448 | 0.446 | 0.055-3.636 | 0.446 | 0.82 | 0.29-2.318 | 0.709 | ||
| Low DD | 1.142 | 0.644-2.027 | 0.649 | 0.879 | 0.307-2.521 | 0.879 | 1.237 | 0.655-2.337 | 0.512 | ||
Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether age-related DD is associated with LBP. LBP was categorized as lasting for the entire period, for < 3 months, or for ≥ 3 months. No association was found for any category. Logistic regression analysis was performed after adjusting for sex, BMI, and BI.
DD: disc degeneration, LBP: low back pain, BMI: body mass index, BI: Brinkman index
Discussion
In this study, participants were divided into three groups: Appropriate, High DD (severe DD relative to age), and Low DD (mild DD relative to age). Several previous studies have reported an association between aging and DD, and it is generally believed that most DD is an age-related change17-20). Other factors considered to have an association with DD include genetic factors, nutritional factors, trauma, obesity, and smoking5,21,22).Most studies that reported an association between severity of DD and LBP were case control studies limited to young adults5,23,24) or epidemiological studies covering a wide range of ages19). Although case control studies in young adults have strongly suggested a relationship between LBP and severity of DD5,23,24), studies in the general population have shown that the effects of age-related DD cannot be ignored19). For these reasons, the present analysis focused on divergence between the degree of DD and age. In other words, we sought to clarify the relationship between age-related DD and LBP by focusing on whether DD was age-appropriate, more advanced than expected for age, or, conversely, less advanced than expected for age.
The results showed that approximately half (54%) of the participants had age-appropriate DD, 11% had severe DD relative to age, and 35% had mild DD relative to age. There was no difference in sex ratio among these three groups. Sex differences in severity of DD have been reported, with males showing more degeneration than females in younger adults39), significantly more advanced degeneration in older postmenopausal females, and more advanced degeneration in females. Wang et al. reported a significantly faster rate of lumbar DD in menopausal females (age 49-50) than that in males of the same age, and that after the 50s, DD was more severe in females than in males of the same age40). They also report that relative estrogen deficiency may accelerate DD in older postmenopausal women. According to these reports, the High DD group would include more young adults and have a higher proportion of males compared with the Low DD group; however, this was not the case in the present study.
There was no difference in obesity (assessed by BMI), which is considered a risk factor for DD, among the three groups in this study. There is no consensus regarding the relationship between obesity and severity of DD. Dario et al. reported a systematic review of twin studies on the association between obesity and LBP, and between obesity and severity of DD. An association between obesity and severity of DD was reported in a study in which genetic factors were not considered41). In two studies in which genetic factors were considered, however, there was an association between obesity and severity of DD in some cases but not in others42,43).In addition, a longitudinal study reported no association between obesity and severity of DD, regardless of the presence or absence of genetic factors44).
Previous clinical and basic research has shown that smoking increases the severity of DD. In a study of 20 pairs of twins, Battie et al. reported that mean DD score was 18% higher in smokers than in nonsmokers45). Animal studies have also shown negative effects of cigarette smoke and nicotine on the intervertebral discs46,47). There were no significant differences in smoking status among the three groups in this study. It is possible that factors other than age (e.g., genetic influences, smoking, obesity, trauma, nutrition) may have biased the findings in the DD High and Low groups, but we found no differences in terms of obesity or smoking status in this study. Further investigation of unexamined confounding factors is needed.
We found that BP and GH were lower in LBP (+) than LBP (–) cases (p = 0.029, p = 0.001), but our cross-sectional study could not establish causality. In general, BP and GH were low in the presence of LBP. There was no association between SF-36 and age-inappropriate DD. Corniola et al. reported that in 284 patients undergoing surgery for lumbar DDD, there was no association between severity of DD, LBP, or QOL score on the SF-1248) (The SF-12 is a simplified version of the SF-36. It consists of 12 questions selected from the SF-36 questionnaire and allows comparison with SF-36 scores). Few studies have focused on severity of DD and QOL. For the hypothesis of an association of more severe degeneration with more severe back pain and/or disability in the present three groups, we would have expected to find worse health-related QOL in subjects with more severe degeneration. In other words, we hypothesized that the High DD group would have a higher prevalence or severity of LBP and lower health-related QOL compared with the Appropriate DD and Low DD groups. However, there were no significant differences in the prevalence or severity of LBP among the three groups based on age and DD. It is noteworthy that not only was prevalence of LBP not significant in the group with severe DD relative to age, but also, there was a 25% prevalence of LBP in the group with mild DD relative to age, and no differences were found between these two groups. There was no association among the three groups in the prevalence of subjects with LBP, nor in terms of duration of LBP, presence of ADL disability, and RDQ, which were not significantly different. The High DD group, which appears to be conventionally associated with LBP, did not necessarily have a large number of cases of LBP, and the Low DD group had the same percentage of LBP as the Appropriate group, indicating that the age-related DD alone may not predict the presence or absence of LBP.
In logistic regression analysis, a more robust statistical method, the presence of age-divergent DD was not associated with the prevalence of LBP, compared with having age-appropriate DD. That is, having high DD relative to age (conventionally considered likely to be symptomatic) or having low DD relative to age (conventionally considered likely to be asymptomatic) also had no direct effect on the presence or absence of LBP. Despite the influence of unadjusted confounders, LBP risk was not increased in the at-risk population with severe DD relative to age, and LBP risk was not decreased with mild DD relative to age, suggesting a low association between LBP and age-related DD.
Whereas a number of previous studies in young subjects have suggested an association between severity of DD and LBP, longitudinal studies have reported no such association on MRI imaging. Jarvik et al. found no association between MRI imaging DD and LBP in a 3-year longitudinal study of 148 veterans, but reported that depression was an important predictor of LBP49). Shambrook et al. analyzed lumbar spine MRI imaging in 354 patients with LBP and reported that High intensity zone, DD, disc herniation, and nerve root compression were not associated with acute LBP. They also noted the importance of psychological risk factors in the absence of a physical pathology50). In this study, not only was the prevalence of LBP not high in the High DD group, which would be assumed to have a high prevalence of symptoms, but there were several cases of LBP in the DD low group, which would be assumed to have a low prevalence of symptoms. The present results align with previous studies showing that many factors contribute to LBP, but that DD on MR imaging is not necessarily a factor in LBP.
It is a strength of this study that in addition to past methods of investigating the relationship between severity of DD and LBP in community residents of all ages, we also investigated age-related DD. Adding the new focus of age-divergent DD to previous research methods may have allowed us to more clearly reevaluate the association between LBP and age-related DD. However, there are some limitations in this study. First, the presence or absence of LBP was used as an outcome, as in previous studies, but the results may change if the nature of LBP were to be classified in more detail. Second, the overall prevalence of LBP onset was relatively low because study subjects were drawn from routine health examinations that are part of Japan’s system of universal health care. Third, the groupings in this study were defined by the age of the subjects and thus the results cannot be directly generalized. How young, old, and severity of DD are defined differ depending on the observed population and methodology of a study. Although the age criterion for the younger age group was somewhat older compared with that used in previous studies, the age criterion for the older age group was in a similar range. Finally, evaluating DD by the DDD score (as the sum of each DD grade) may have reduced the discriminative power of the LBP diagnosis. The same total score can be attained for mild degeneration in several discs or for severe degeneration in a few discs, which are different pathological entities. However, Cheung et al. reported that it is possible to assess the relationship between DD and LBP using the DDD score19)
Conclusion
When age-related DD was considered for clarifying the association between DD and LBP, no association was found between age-inappropriate DD (High or Low DD group) and age-appropriate DD (Appropriate group) in terms of LBP, RDQ, or SF-36. When examining the relationship between imaging findings of degeneration and symptoms such as LBP, it is necessary to take into account the physiological progression of aging, rather than simply the presence or absence of degeneration.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr Akira Onda, Dr Kazuya Yamauchi, Dr Yoshiaki Takeyachi, Dr Ichiro Takahashi, Dr Hisayoshi Tachihara, and Dr Bunji Takayama for participating in the data collection. The authors would also like to thank five public health nurses (Nobuko Fujita, Nakako Hoshi, Misako Hoshi, Naoko Imada, and Seiko Kanno) for their support in carrying out this study.
Disclosure
The authors declare no conflicts of interest associated with manuscript.
References
- 1.Jervik JG, Deyo RA. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. Ann Intern Med, 137(7): 586-597, 2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Deyo RA, Cherkin D, Conrad D, Volinn Ee. Cost, controversy, crisis: low back pain and health of the public. Annu Rev Public Health, 12: 141-156, 1991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Atkinson HJ, Slater MA, Patterson TL, Grant I, Garfin SR. Prevalence, onset, and risk of psychiatric disorders in men with chronic low back pain: a controlled study. Pain, 45(2): 111-121, 1991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Yu SW, Sether LA, Ho PS, Wagner M, Haughton VM. Tears of the anulus fibrosus: correlation between MR and pathologic findings in cadavers. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 9(2): 367-370, 1988. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kjaer P, Leboeuf-Yde C, Sorensen JS, Bendix T. An Epidemiologic Study of MRI and Low Back Pain in 13-Year-Old Children. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 30(7): 798-806, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.DeCandido P, Reinig JW, Dwyer AJ, Thompson KJ, Ducker TB. Magnetic Resonance Assessment of the Distribution of Lumbar Spine Disc Degenerative Changes. J Spinal Disord, 1(1): 9-15, 1988. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Huang YC, Urban JP, Luk KD. Intervertebral disc regeneration: do nutrients lead the way ? Nat Rev Rheumatol, 10(9): 561-566, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Risbud MV, Shapiro IM. Role of Cytokines in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration: Pain and Disc content. Nat Rev Rheumatol, 10(1): 44-56, 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tertti MO, Salminen JJ, Paajanen HE, Terho PH, Kormano MJ. Low-back pain and disk dgeneration in children: a case-control MR imaging study. Radiology, 180(2): 503-507, 1991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Erkintalo MO, Salminen JJ, Alanen AM, Paajanen HE, Kormano MJ. Development of degenerative changes in the lumbar intervertebral disk: results of a prospective MR imaging study in adolescents with and without low-back pain. Radiology., 196(2): 529-533, 1995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Paajanen H, Erikintalo M, Kuusela T, Dahlstrom S, Kormano M. Magnetic resonance study of disc degeneration in young low-back pain patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 14(9): 982-985, 1989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Luoma K, Riihimäki H, Luukkonen R, Raininko R, Viikari-Juntura E, Lamminen A. Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(4): 487-492, 2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Samartzis D, Karppinen J, Mok F, Fong DY, Luk KD, Cheung KM. A population-based study of juvenile disc degeneration and its association with overweight and obesity, low back pain, and diminished functional status. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 93(7): 662-670, 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 72(3): 403-408, 1990. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Boos N, Semmer N, Elfering A, et al. Natural history of individuals with asymptomatic disc abnormalities in magnetic resonance imaging: predictors of low back pain-related medical consultation and work incapacity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(12): 1484-1492, 2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Savage RA, Whitehouse GH, Roberts N. The relationship between the magnetic resonance imaging appearance of the lumbar spine and low back pain , age and occupation in males. Eur Spine J, 6(2): 106-114, 1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Powell MC, Wilson M, Szypryt P, Symonds EM, Worthington BS. Prevalence of lumbar disc degeneration observed by magnetic resonance in symptomless women. Lancet, 2(8520): 1366-1367, 1986. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Boos N, Weissbach S, Rohrbach H, Weiler C, Spratt KF, Nerlich AG. Classification of age-related changes in lumbar intervertebral discs: 2002 Volvo Award in basic science. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 27(23): 2631-2644, 2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Cheung KM, Karppinen J, Chan D, et al. Prevalence and pattern of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging changes in a population study of one thousand forty-three individuals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 34(9): 934-940, 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Teraguchi M, Yoshimura N, Hashizume H, et al. Prevalence and distribution of intervertebral disc degeneration over the entire spine in a population-based cohort: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 22(1): 104-110, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lee S, Lee JW, Yeom JS, Kim HJ, Chung SK, Kang HS. A practical MRI grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 194(4): 1095-1098, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Battié MC, Videman T, Parent E. Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetic influences. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 29(13): 2679-2690. 23, 2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kjaer P, Leboeuf-yde C, Korsholm L, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Low Back Pain in Adults: A Diagnostic Imaging Study of 40-Year-Old Men and Women. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 30: 1173-1180, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Al-saeed O, Al-jarallah K, Raeess M, Sheikh M, Ismail M, Athyal R. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in young arabs with low back pain. Asian Spine J, 6(4): 249-256, 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kikuchi S. New concept for backache: biopsychosocial pain syndrome. Eur Spine J, 17(Suppl 4): 421-427, 2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Otani K, Kikuchi S, Nikaido T, Konno SI. Magnitude of dural tube compression does not show a predictive value for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis for 1-year follow-up: a prospective cohort study in the community. Clin Interv Aging, 13: 1739-1746, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.BRINKMAN GL, COATES EO jr. The effect of bronchitis, smoking,and occupation on ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis, 87: 684-693, 1963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Konno S, Suzukamo Y, Fukuhara S. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Japanese version of the Roland-Morris Disabitity Questionnaire. Seikei Geka, 54: 958-693, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Suzukamo Y, Fukuhara S, Kikuchi S, et al. Vadlidation of the Japanese Version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. J orthop Sci, 8: 543-548, 2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Fukuhara S, Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Wada S, Gandek B. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol, 51(11): 1045-1053, 1998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Fukuhara S, Bito S, Green J, Hsiao A, Kurokawa K. Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Japan. J Clin Epidemiol, 51(11): 1037-1044, 1998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Fukuhara S, Suzukamo Y. Manual of the SF-36v2 Japanese Version. Kyoto, Japan: Institute for Health Outcomes and ProcessEvaluation Research. Health (Irvine Calif), 10. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Schneiderman G, Flannigan B, Kingston S, Thomas J, Dillin WH, Watkins RG. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of disc degeneration: correlation with discography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 12(3): 276-281, 1987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H, Ohmori K, Matsui H, Kimura T. The association of lumbar disc disease with vitamin-D receptor gene polymorphism. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 84(11): 2022-2028, 2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, Edwards KR, Cleeland CS. When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe ? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain, 61(2): 277-284, 1995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med, 331(2): 69-73, 1994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Takahashi N, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Morita S, Suzuamo Y, Green J, Fukuhara S. Discrepancy between disability and the severity of low back pain: demographic, psychologic , and employment-related factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 31(8): 931-939, 2006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics, 33(1): 159-174, 1977. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Papageorgiou AC, Croft PR, Thomas E, Ferry S, Jayson MI, Silman AJ. Influence of previous pain experience on the episode incidence of low back pain: results from the South Manchester Back Pain Study. Pain, 66(2-3): 181-185, 1996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Wang YXJ. Postmenopausal Chinese women show accelerated lumbar disc degeneration compared with Chinese men. J Orthop Translat., 3(4): 205-211, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Hestbeak L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Kyvik KO. Are lifestyle-factors in adolescence predictors for adult low back pain ? A cross-sectional and prospective study of young twins. BMC Musculoskelet Disord., 15(7): 27, 2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Videman T, Gibbons LE, Kaprio J, Battié MC. Challenging the cumulative injury model: positive effects of greater body mass on disc degeneration. Spine J., 10(1): 26-31, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Williams FM, Popham M, Sambrook PN, Jones AF, Spector TD, MacGregor AJ. Progression of lumbar disc degeneration over decade: a heritability study. Ann Rheum Dis., 70(7): 1203-1207, 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Dario AB, Ferreira ML, Refshauge KM, Lima TS, Ordoñana JR, Ferreira PH. The relationship between obesity, low back pain and lumbar disc degeneration when genetics and the environment are considered: a systematic review of twin studies. Spine J 15(5): 1106-1117, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Battié MC, Videman T, Gill K, Moneta GB, Nyman R, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M. 1991 Volvo Award in clinical sciences. Smoking and lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration: an MRI study of identical twins. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 16(9): 1015-1021, 1991. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Holm S, Nachemson A. Nutrition of the intervertebral disc: acute fffects of cigarette smoking. An experimental animal study. Ups J Med Sci., 93(1): 9-9, 1988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Iwahashi M, Matsuzaki H, Tokuhashi Y, Wakabayashi K, Uematsu Y. Mechanism of intervertebral disc degeneration caused by nicotine in rabbits to explicate intervertebral disc disorders caused by smoking. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 27(13): 1396-1401, 2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Corniola MV, Stienen MN, Joswig H, Smoll NR, Schaller K, Hildebrandt G, Gautschi OP. Correlation of pain, functional impairment, and health-related quality of life with radiological grading scales of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Acta Neurochir (Wien)., 158(3): 499-505, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Jarvik JG, Hollingworth W, Heagerty PJ, Haynor DR, Boyko EJ, Deyo RA. Three-year incidence of low back pain in an initially asymptomatic cohort clinical and imaging risk factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)., 30(13): 1541-1548, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Shambrook J, McNee P, Harris CE, Kim M, Sampson M, Palmer KT, Coggon D. Clinical presentation of low back pain and ssociation with risk factors according to findings on magnetic resonance imaging. Pain, 152(7): 1659-1665, 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]