Acute Low Back Pain and Radiculopathy: MR Imaging Findings and Their Prognostic Role and Effect on Outcome

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine in patients with acute low back pain (LBP) or radiculopathy, the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings, prognostic role of these findings, and effect of diagnostic information on outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. This study was HIPAA compliant. A total of 246 patients with acute-onset LBP or radiculopathy were randomized to either the early information arm of the study, with MR results provided within 48 hours, or the second arm of the study, where both patients and physicians were blinded to MR results, unless this information was critical to patient care. Patients underwent 6 weeks of conservative care. Roland function scoring, visual pain analog, Short Form 36 health status survey, self-efficacy scoring, and a fear avoidance questionnaire were completed at presentation; at 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-week follow-up; and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. A second MR imaging examination was performed at 6-week follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine which imaging and nonimaging variables can be used to predict improvement in Roland function and patient satisfaction. The χ2 test and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used to compare outcome of blinded and unblinded patients.

RESULTS: Herniation was identified in 60% (n = 147) of patients at the initial examination. The prevalence of herniations in patients with LBP (57%) (n = 85) and those with radiculopathy (65%) (n = 62) were similar (P = .217), although patients with radiculopathy were more likely to have stenosis and nerve root compression (P < .006). There was no relationship between herniation type, size, and behavior over time with outcome. An improvement of 50% or more in Roland function score at 6-week follow-up occurred 2.7 times as often among patients with a herniation at baseline (P = .003). Improvement at 6-week follow-up was similar in unblinded (60%) (n = 55) and blinded (67%) (n = 57) patients (P = .397). Self-efficacy, fear avoidance beliefs, and the Short Form 36 subscales were similar for blinded and unblinded patients.

CONCLUSION: In typical patients with LBP or radiculopathy, MR imaging does not appear to have measurable value in terms of planning conservative care. Patient knowledge of imaging findings does not alter outcome and is associated with a lesser sense of well-being.

© RSNA, 2005


  • 1 CherkinDC, Deyo RA, Wheeler K, Ciol MA. Physician variation in diagnostic testing for low back pain: who you see is what you get. Arthritis Rheum1994;37(1):15–22. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 AckermanSJ, Steinberg EP, Bryan RN, BenDebba M, Long DM. Trends in diagnostic imaging for low back pain: has MR imaging been a substitute or add-on? Radiology1997;203(2):533–538. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 3 JensenMC, 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 Med1994;331(2):69–73. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 BodenSD, 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 Am1990;72(3):403–408. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 RolandM, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. I. Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine1983;8(2):141–144. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 CherkinDC, Deyo RA, Street JH, Barlow W. Predicting poor outcomes for back pain seen in primary care using patients' own criteria. Spine1996;21(24):2900–2907. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 FardonDF, Milette PC. Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology: recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine2001;26(5):E93–E113. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 AtlasSJ, Deyo RA, Patrick DL, Convery K, Keller RB, Singer DE. The Quebec Task Force classification for spinal disorders and the severity, treatment, and outcomes of sciatica and lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine1996;21(24):2885–2892. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 ConoverWJ, Iman RL. Analysis of covariance using the rank transformation. Biometrics1982;38(3):715–724. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 HolmS. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat1979;6:65–70. Google Scholar
  • 11 SoxH, Stern S, Owens D. Assessment of diagnostic technology in health care: rationale, methods, problems and directions. Washington, DC: National Academy, 1989. Google Scholar
  • 12 SaalJA, Saal JS, Herzog RJ. The natural history of lumbar intervertebral disc extrusions treated nonoperatively. Spine1990;15(7):683–686. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 BushK, Cowan N, Katz DE, Gishen P. The natural history of sciatica associated with disc pathology: a prospective study with clinical and independent radiologic follow-up. Spine1992;17(10):1205–1212. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 MaigneJY, Rime B, Deligne B. Computed tomographic follow-up study of forty-eight cases of nonoperatively treated lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine1992;17(9):1071–1074. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 BozzaoA, Gallucci M, Masciocchi C, Aprile I, Barile A, Passariello R. Lumbar disk herniation: MR imaging assessment of natural history in patients treated without surgery. Radiology1992;185(1):135–141. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 16 ModicMT, Ross JS, Obuchowski NA, Browning KH, Cianflocco AJ, Mazanec DJ. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in acute lumbar radiculopathy: a pilot study of the natural history. Radiology1995;195(2):429–435. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 17 WieselSW, Tsourmas N, Feffer HL, Citrin CM, Patronas N. A study of computer-assisted tomography. I. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an asymptomatic group of patients. Spine1984;9(6):549–551. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 BorensteinDG, O'Mara JW Jr, Boden SD, et al. The value of magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine to predict low-back pain in asymptomatic subjects: a 7-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am2001;83-A(9):1306–1311. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 CarrageeEJ, Kim DH. A prospective analysis of magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with sciatica and lumbar disc herniation: correlation of outcomes with disc fragment and canal morphology. Spine1997;22(14):1650–1660. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sox HCJr, Margulies I, Sox CH. Psychologically mediated effects of diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med1981;95(6):680–685. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 DeyoRA. Practice variations, treatment fads, rising disability: do we need a new clinical research paradigm? Spine1993;18(15):2153–2162. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Von KorffM, Saunders K. The course of back pain in primary care. Spine1996;21(24):2833–2837. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 JarvikJG, Hollingworth W, Martin B, et al. Rapid magnetic resonance imaging versus radiographs for patients with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA2003;289(21):2810–2818. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 McNallyEG, Wilson DJ, Ostlere SJ. Limited magnetic resonance imaging in low back pain instead of plain radiographs: experience with first 1000 cases. Clin Radiol2001;56(11):922–925. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 RobertsonJT. The rape of the spine. Surg Neurol1993;39:5–12. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 DeyoRA, Bigos SJ, Maravilla KR. Diagnostic imaging procedures for the lumbar spine. Ann Intern Med1989;111(11):865–867. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 LongDM. Decision making in lumbar disc disease. Clin Neurosurg1992;39:36–51. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 FagerCA. Identification and management of radiculopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am1993;4(1):1–12. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 PearceJM. Conservative treatment and natural history of acute lumbar disc lesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1967;30:13–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 HakeliusA. Prognosis in sciatica: a clinical follow-up of surgical and non-surgical treatment. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl1970;129:1–76. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31 BellGR, Rothman RH. The conservative treatment of sciatica. Spine1984;9(1):54–56. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 SaalJA, Saal JS. Nonoperative treatment of herniated lumbar intervertebral disc with radiculopathy: an outcome study. Spine1989;14(4):431–437. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 CowanNC, Bush K, Katz DE, Gishen P. The natural history of sciatica: a prospective radiological study. Clin Radiol1992;46(1):7–12. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Delauche-CavallierMC, Budet C, Laredo JD, et al. Lumbar disc herniation: computed tomography scan changes after conservative treatment of nerve root compression. Spine1992;17(8):927–933. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35 WeberH, Holme I, Amlie E. The natural course of acute sciatica with nerve root symptoms in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the effect of piroxicam. Spine1993;18(11):1433–1438. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36 CarrageeEJ, Han MY, Suen PW, Kim D. Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competence. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003;85-A(1):102–108. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37 WeberH. Lumbar disc herniation: a prospective study of prognostic factors including a controlled trial. I. J Oslo City Hosp 1978;28(3-4):33–61. Google Scholar
  • 38 WeberH. Lumbar disc herniation: a controlled, prospective study with ten years of observation. Spine1983;8(2):131–140. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39 ThomasM, Grant N, Marshall J, Stevens J. Surgical treatment of low backache and sciatica. Lancet1983;2(8365–8366):1437–1439. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Malter AD, Larson EB, Urban N, Deyo RA. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy for the treatment of herniated intervertebral disc. Spine 1996;21(9):1048–1054. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Nov 2005