Background ContextThere are few comparisons of Modic changes (MCs) in the lumbar and cervical spine.PurposeCompare the prevalence of MCs in the lumbar and cervical spine, and determine how MC prevalence depends on spinal pain, age, disc degeneration, spinal level, and the presence or absence of kyphosis.Study DesignRetrospective clinical survey.Materials and MethodsMagnetic resonance images (MRIs) were compared from five patient groups: 1. 1223 patients with low-back pain/radiculopathy only; 2. 1023 patients with neck pain/radiculopathy only; 3. 497 patients with concurrent low-back and neck symptoms; 4. 304 asymptomatic subjects with lumbar MRIs; and 5. 120 asymptomatic subjects with cervical MRIs.ResultsThe prevalence of MCs was higher in those with spinal pain than in those without, both in the lumbar spine (21.0% vs 10.5%) and cervical spine (8.8% vs 3.3%). Type II MCs were most common and Type III were least common in all groups. The prevalence of lumbar MCs in people with back pain was little affected by the presence of concurrent neck pain, and the same was true for the prevalence of cervical MCs in people with neck pain with or without concurrent back pain. When symptomatic patients were reclassified into two groups (back pain, neck pain), the prevalence of lumbar MCs in people with back pain was greater than that of cervical MCs in people with neck pain. The prevalence of lumbar and cervical MCs increased with age, disc degeneration, (descending) spinal level, and increased kyphosis.ConclusionsThere is a significantly higher prevalence of MCs in patients with back and neck pain. The reported association with increased kyphosis (flat back) is novel.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.