Relationship between the morphology and composition of the lumbar paraspinal and psoas muscles and lumbar intervertebral motion in people with chronic low back pain

Comparison of lumbar muscle morphology in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain with and without clinical lumbar segmental instability

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of spinal muscle morphology may be critical because of its impact on segmental stability and control of the lumbar spine in the subset of patients with clinical lumbar segmental instability (LSI). The purpose of this study was to compare lumbar muscle morphology in CNLBP patients with clinical LSI, CNLBP patients without clinical LSI.

METHODS

This case-control study included 30 patients with CNLBP (15 with clinical LSI and 15 without clinical LSI) and 15 subjects without LBP. Axial magnetic resonance images from the L2 to S1 lumbar levels were used to evaluate the morphology of the lumbar muscles.

RESULTS

A significant increase in the muscle-to-fat infiltration index and a significant decrease in the relative muscle cross-sectional area (rmCSA) of the multifidus muscle at the L3-L4 to L5-S1 levels were observed in both CNLBP groups compared to the control group (p<0.05). The mean erector spinae mean rmCSA was significantly greater in the clinical LSI group compared to the control group (SMD = 0.853, 95% CI = 0.105 to -1.6, P = 0.044) and also compared to the CNLBP without clinical LSI (SMD = 0.894, 95% CI = -1.645 to -0.144, P = 0.030) at the L4-L5 level.

CONCLUSIONS

The atrophic changes of the multifidus muscle, in CNLBP patients with or without clinical LSI was observed. However, hypertrophic changes of the erector spinae muscle at the L4-L5 lumbar level were observed only in the clinical LSI group. Psaos major did not show significant atrophic or hypertrophic changes.

Inter-software and inter-threshold reliability of quantitative paraspinal muscle segmentation

PURPOSE

Changes in the cross-sectional area (CSA) and functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) of the lumbar multifidus (MF) and erector spinae muscles (ES) are factors that can contribute to low back pain. For the assessment of muscle CSA and composition there are various software and threshold methods used for tissue segmentation in quantitative analysis. However, there is currently no gold standard for software as well as muscle segmentation. This study aims to analyze the measurement error between different image processing software and different threshold methods for muscle segmentation.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance images (MRI) of 60 patients were evaluated. Muscle CSA and FCSA measurements were acquired from axial T2-weighted MRI of the MF and ES at L4/L5 and L5/S1. CSA, FCSA, and FCSA/CSA ratio were measured independently by two observers. The MRI images were measured using two different software programs (ImageJ and Amira) and with two threshold methods (Circle/Overlap method) for each software to evaluate FCSA and FCSA/CSA ratio.

RESULTS

Inter-software comparisons revealed high inter-rater reliability. However, poor inter-rater reliability were obtained with different threshold methods. CSA, FCSA, and FCSA/CSA showed excellent inter-software agreement of 0.75-0.99 regardless of the threshold segmentation method. The inter-rater reliability between the two observers ranged between 0.75 and 0.99. Comparison of the two segmentation methods revealed agreement between 0.19 and 0.84. FCSA and FCSA/CSA measured via the Overlap method were significantly higher than those measured via the Circle method (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed a high degree of reliability with very good agreement between the two software programs. However, study results based on different threshold methods should not be directly compared.