MORE VIDEOS

Ross A. Hauser, MD, Danielle R. Steilen-Matias, MMS, PA-C

Is your MRI sending you to a back surgery you do not need because of fear and panic?

In this article, we are seeking to offer one simple piece of information. Your MRI may be sending you to a spinal surgery you do not need. We are going to support this simple idea with research and scientific papers and our observations of the many patients we have seen after failed back surgery syndrome. We will further help you understand how MRIs can be wrong and inaccurate and why MRI readings may lead to INCREASED incidents of failed back surgery syndrome.

People do have very successful spinal surgeries. These spinal surgeries were recommended after an MRI reading showed some type of degenerative disc disease. People who have successful spinal surgeries are not the people we see in our office. We see the people for whom spinal surgery, even minimally invasive spinal surgery procedures was not the right option. For many of these people, they were advised prior that this surgery they are embarking on may not help them. But for these people, many thought, “what else could they do?” Especially after conservative care options had failed and MRI revealed disc damage? Unfortunately, some of these people were not presented with other options beyond surgery, painkillers, and “live with it.”

Most medical physicians rely too heavily on diagnostic tests, especially for low back problems. Consequently, many who suffer from low back pain do not find relief. The typical scenario is as follows: A person complains to a physician about low back pain that radiates down the leg. The physician orders x-rays and an MRI. The scan reveals an abnormality in the disc—such as a herniated, bulging, or degenerated disc. Unfortunately for the patient, this finding usually has nothing to do with the pain.

Did your spinal MRI scare you into surgery you did not need?

In July 2021, two surgeons and a radiologist published a randomized control trial study in the European Spine Journal.(1) The basis of this study was, did the MRI interpretation scare the patient into a surgery they did not need? Further, did the patient have poor surgical outcomes because their MRI report sent them into “catastrophic thought?” This is what the researcher team reported:

“Inappropriate use of MRI leads to increasing interventions and surgeries for low back pain. We probed the potential effects of a routine MRI report on the patient’s perception of (his/her) spine and functional outcome of treatment. An alternate ‘clinical reporting’ was developed and tested for benefits on low back pain perception.”

Explanation:

• Patients are getting MRIs, some inappropriately as a routine diagnostic tool.
• Some of the MRIs may report routine degenerative disc disease, much of it is asymptomatic.
• Yet, the patient is told about these findings in sometimes ominous terms and these findings send some into a panic. So much so that they fail conservative care treatment and even surgery because they believe that they may be “too far gone.” The doctors of this study conjecture that there should be another way developed to let patients know about their MRI findings without causing them to go into catastrophic thought.

In this study, the doctors then the doctors separated out 44 patients.

• Some patients went into Group A.
  • These patients had a factual explanation of their MRI report. They were told exactly what the MRI interpretation said.
• Some patients went into Group B.
  • These patients had their MRI interpretation explained to them factually but in more reassuring terms. It was suggested to the patients in this group that the degenerative changes in their spine were normal changes given to aging.

Then the progress of the patient’s pain and symptoms were assessed.

• After 6 weeks of conservative routine treatment, Group A had a more significant negative perception of their spinal condition, increased catastrophization, decreased pain improvement, and poorer functional status.
• Group B (the patients who were reassured that their MRI was “not that bad” and part of normal aging, had significant benefits in the assessment of lesser severity of the disease, shift to lesser severity of intervention and surgery.

Let’s stop here again. The patients in the group who had their MRI interpretations given to them in more reassuring terms went to surgery less.

Conclusion of this research: “Routine MRI reports produce a negative perception and poor functional outcomes in low back pain. Focused clinical reporting had significant benefits, which calls for the need for ‘clinical reporting’ rather than ‘Image reporting’.” In other words, treat the patient, not the MRI. Stop frightening patients with MRI interpretations and send them to surgery that they may not need.

When your back doesn’t hurt but your MRI looks terrible

In the image below: MRI of the lower back showing degenerative disc disease. When a disc loses its water content, it will appear dark on MRI scans. This is a sign of degenerative disc disease. But what if a patient exhibits no pain? What is the call?

---

“Overdiagnosis occurs when diagnostic imaging detects incidental findings that are common in the asymptomatic population (eg, intervertebral disc degeneration) and provides the patient with a diagnostic label that brings them no benefit or causes harm.”

Research into the problems of MRI overuse and over-reliance is hardly new. Interestingly is the frequent use of the word catastrophic. The above study carried the title: “The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of clinical reporting.” Recently published by the University of Sydney was a paper in the British Medical Open Journal. (2)  This is the introductory sentence to their paper on the need for examining MRI overuse and the catastrophic problems it can create for some patients:

• “Little is known about how to reduce unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Understanding clinician, patient, and general public beliefs about imaging are critical to developing strategies to reduce overuse.”

The researchers have identified a problem that everyone knows about but little is being done about it. Too many people are getting unnecessary MRIs and this is causing unnecessary and unneeded spinal surgeries.

“Unnecessary diagnostic imaging is associated with substantial harm including the risk of overdiagnosis.”

Let’s continue on with statements from the researchers:

• “Unnecessary diagnostic imaging is associated with substantial harm including the risk of overdiagnosis.”
• “Overdiagnosis occurs when diagnostic imaging detects incidental findings that are common in the asymptomatic population (eg, intervertebral disc degeneration) and provides the patient with a diagnostic label that brings them no benefit or causes harm.”
• “Unnecessary diagnostic imaging for low back pain drives flow-on effects such as:
  • overuse of advanced imaging,
  • opioid prescriptions,
  • (epidural and cortisone) spinal injections and
  • spinal surgery”
• “Evidence from clinical guidelines suggests that most of these interventions have little to no benefit, and substantial risk for harms, in patients with non-specific low back pain.”

How are these researchers tackling this problem? They hope that at the completion of their study they can make useful recommendations to help doctors understand when and when not to rely on MRIs and this, in turn, will prevent opioid abuse and unnecessary spinal surgery.

In the image below we see an MRI showing lumbar spondylosis. It shows endplate sclerosis, disc space narrowing, osteophytes, or bones spurs. According to the research studies we are looking at, the patient can be told in one of two ways what this MRI says.

1. They can be told that they have endplate sclerosis and the developing of bone spurs or boney overgrowth osteophytes. This is causing disc space narrowing and compression and spinal problems. (This can cause people to catastrophize that they have significant spinal problems).
2. They can be told that they have endplate sclerosis and the developing of bone spurs or boney overgrowth osteophytes. This is causing disc space narrowing and compression and spinal problems. BUT, this is part of the normal aging process, and that it can be treated without surgical intervention. (These are the patients who, according to research, do not require as many surgeries and the first group).

“Overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common.” “Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests.”

A study from July 2021 (25) cited an epidemic of unnecessary MRIs sending people to unnecessary surgery and worsening the patients condition by creating “failed back surgery syndrome” in many of them. In this paper, researchers expressed concerns over how many MRIs were being ordered by general practitioners for musculoskeletal problems in the United Kingdom. The researchers note a phenomena found here in the United States as well that there is limited supporting evidence that these MRIs will be helpful to the patient and worse there is the potential for patient harms from early imaging overuse.

In this paper, researchers expressed concerns over how many MRIs were being ordered by general practitioners for musculoskeletal problems in the United Kingdom. The researchers note a phenomena found here in the United States as well (see research below) that there is limited supporting evidence that these MRIs will be helpful to the patient and worse there is the potential for patient harms from early imaging overuse.

Here are the numbers that caused concern:

• Of 306 musculoskeletal-MRIs requested by 107 clinicians across 29 practices, only 4.9% appeared clearly indicated and only 16.0% received appropriate prior therapy.
• Most patients had chronic symptoms and half had psychosocial flags. Mental health was addressed in only 11.8% of chronic sufferers with psychiatric illness, suggesting a solely pathoanatomical approach to musculoskeletal care. (My note: Simply this is a way of saying that the doctors are going to treat the MRI not the patient).
• Most imaged patients received pathoanatomical explanations to their symptoms, often based on expected age or activity-related changes. Only 16.7% of results appeared correctly interpreted by the general practitioner who ordered it, with spurious overperception of surgical targets in 65.4% who suffered ‘low-value’ (ineffective, harmful or wasteful) post-MRI referral cascades due to misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis.
• Imaged patients experienced considerable delay to appropriate care.

This study was cited by another study from The University of Sydney published in August 2020 (3) which offered these observations on the overreliance of spinal MRIs.

• “Overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common. The underlying beliefs about diagnostic imaging that could drive overuse remain unclear.” (Our note: In other words, clinicians are aware that there are many unnecessary MRIs ordered, yet, they are still ordered for patients who may be better suited without an MRI).

In this paper, the researchers examined 69 studies with 1747 participants.

Key findings included:

• Patients and clinicians believe diagnostic imaging is an important test to locate the source of low back pain;
• patients with chronic low back pain believe pathological findings on diagnostic imaging provide evidence that pain is real;
• and clinicians ordered diagnostic imaging to reduce the risk of a missed diagnosis that could lead to litigation and to manage patients’ expectations.

Conclusion: “Clinicians and patients can believe that diagnostic imaging is an important tool for locating the source of non-specific low back pain. Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests. These beliefs could be important targets for intervention.”

“(The people of the focus groups) reacted with surprise, initial mistrust, and occasionally anger towards imagery and messaging that suggested diagnostic imaging tests could be unnecessary and harmful.”

In April 2021, (4) this same research team conducted two focus groups of 19 people with or without low back pain to test their concepts of a public health campaign aimed at educating patients about the risks and harms of unnecessary imaging tests for non-specific low back pain. They published their results in the journal “Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.”

What they found was people wanted the MRI. How did they make this assessment? They asked the people in the study group to look at components of a public health campaign that included digital posters and an information leaflet using strong imagery and messaging about the risk of over-diagnosis.

Results: “(The people of the focus groups) reacted with surprise, initial mistrust, and occasionally anger towards imagery and messaging that suggested diagnostic imaging tests could be unnecessary and harmful. With further reflection and discussion, and after reading longer format information about over-diagnosis, the participants found some of the messages informative and useful. Participants appeared to gain a better understanding of the concept of over-diagnosis and the importance of not rushing to imaging.”

When radiologists say we are doing too many inappropriate MRIs, and that research underestimates the true extent of how many inappropriate MRIs are ordered for back pain, we know there is a problem.

---

Nearly one-third (31% of MRIs) were deemed inappropriate or not helpful to the patient’s condition.

The theme of this article is over-reliance on MRI use for routine back pain problems and what these MRIs are doing to people emotionally and mentally. That is what radiologists at the Health Economics Resource Center, at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System in Menlo Park, California writing about the inappropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with low back pain. (5) The 2016 research appears in The American Journal of Managed Care. As you can see in the last five years there is still a concern.

• The researchers of this paper looked at over 110,000 lumbar spinal MRIs performed on veterans in 2012.
• Of the 110,661 lumbar spinal MRIs performed, 31% were classified as inappropriate.
• Most scans that were considered appropriate were characterized as such because they were preceded by conservative therapy (53%).

We see many patients who visit us and the first thing they want to do is get an MRI to bring to the first visit. Many of these people are shocked to hear that we very rarely order one and in almost every case it is not necessary. Some of these patients get very confused, “How can there be no MRI?” In treating degenerative disc disease and spinal ligament damage, our near 30 years of experience tells us that we can get the answers we need to help the patient with a consultation and physical examination, no need for an MRI. In fact, the MRI may just confuse things because all the patients can think about is bulging discs when bulging discs are not what is causing them pain. Please see our article Non-surgical treatment of a herniated or bulging disc, I hope you will find the information helpful in understanding what your spine is telling you and what an MRI is telling you. Listen to your spine.

Approximately one quarter (24.5%) were categorized as appropriate, and 75.5% were deemed inappropriate. 51% of the inappropriate referrals lacked information about previous non-surgical treatment, and 49% had no information about the duration of non-surgical treatment

The same theme of this 2016 study was repeated in a February 2022 paper. Using the 2016 as one citation to support their paper’s findings, doctors in Denmark wrote in the journal Chiropractic & manual therapies.(33)

“International guidelines do not recommend routine imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and seek to guide clinicians only to refer for imaging based on specific indications. Despite this, several studies show an increase in the use of MRI among patients with low back pain and an imbalance between appropriate versus inappropriate use of MRI for low back pain.” In this study the doctors looked at 2051 referrals for MRI of the lumbar spine. “Approximately one quarter (24.5%) were categorized as appropriate, and 75.5% were deemed inappropriate. 51% of the inappropriate referrals lacked information about previous non-surgical treatment, and 49% had no information about the duration of non-surgical treatment. . . .The majority of lumbar MRI referrals (75.5%) from general practitioners for lumbar MRI did not fulfil the American College of Radiology (ACR) Imaging Appropriateness Criteria for LBP based on the unstructured text of their referrals. There is a need for referrers to include all guideline-relevant information in referrals for imaging. More research is needed to determine whether this is due to patients not fulfilling guideline recommendations or simply the content of the referrals.”

Unneeded MRIs do not improve patient outcomes and lead to unnecessary surgeries

Let’s move onto an April 2020 paper in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. (6) Here researchers noted:

• Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine is unneeded during the first 6 weeks of acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Unneeded MRIs do not improve patient outcomes, lead to unnecessary surgeries and procedures. Why primary care providers order unneeded MRIs for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain is poorly understood. (No one knows why).

This is considered “the” appropriate MRI

• In this study, most MRIs that were considered appropriate for the patient to get were those following failure of conservative care options therapy (53%).
  • What are typical conservative care options?
    • Pain medications
    • Yoga, Pilates, low impact exercises, physical therapy
    • Chiropractic care, massage
    • Back braces

“Patients with low back pain rarely have serious underlying pathology but frequently undergo inappropriate imaging.”

In March of 2020 researchers at King’s College London and the University of Sydney reinforced this message of inappropriate and appropriate MRIs for low back pain: Here is what they wrote in the European Spine Journal. (7)

“Patients with low back pain rarely have serious underlying pathology but frequently undergo inappropriate imaging. . . Greater clarity is needed on how we define and measure imaging appropriateness for low back pain, which also accounts for the problem of failing to image when indicated.”

In this video, Ross Hauser, MD describes the 5 main reasons that back surgery failed to help the patient’s condition. Number 1 is the wrong surgery.

Five reasons back surgery fails

1. The surgery did not address the actual cause of the patient’s pain. The diagnosis is wrong.  The main cause of ‘”missed” low back pain is an injury to the Sacroiliac Joint. If your MRI showed disc degenerative disease and you had the discs operated on but the Sacroiliac Joint was not addressed, the pain will continue after the surgery.
2. The surgery made the lower back MORE unstable. Foraminotomy, Laminectomy, Microdiscectomy, disc surgery, all have to remove parts of the bone in the spine.
3.  The “missed secondary problem.” The surgery may have successfully addressed what was considered your primary problem, but, you really had two problems. This could be a multi-segmental problem that was not discovered until after the first surgery.
4. Too much sitting after surgery.
5. A more rare situation is when scar tissue forms and pinches on the nerves.

---

Research: “more than 50% of the patients indicated that they would undergo spine surgery based on abnormalities found on MRI, even without symptoms.”

---

This is the medicine of chronic back pain: MRI to diagnose the problem, surgery to correct the problem. But what if the MRI was wrong? Was the surgery wrong too?

As we will see below in cited research: When “more than 50% of the patients indicated that they would undergo spine surgery based on abnormalities found on MRI, even without symptoms,” we know that there is a problem.

The biggest problem is that spinal surgery is a standard of care that has been scrutinized for excessive failures.

• This is the medicine of chronic back pain: MRI to diagnose the problem, surgery to correct the problem.
  • Problem: the diagnosis based on MRI is often wrong, as we will see in the research below.
  • Problem: the surgery is correcting something that is not a pain-causing factor. If it is not broken, don’t fix it, is replaced by “It’s not broken, we will fix it anyway.”
  • Problem: The surgery itself is causing more pain post-operatively. What was not broken was then broken by the surgery.
  • Ultimate Problem: Failed back surgery syndrome.

Where is the evidence for all this? It is all around us in the medical literature.

A 63-year-old woman with lumbar radiculopathy walks into 10 different imaging centers. What happens next?

In the medical publication Spine Journal, (8) doctors at the Hospital for Special Surgery, Spreemo Quality Research Institute, and Thomas Jefferson University Hospital wrote of their observations of what happened when they sent a 63-year-old woman with back pain complaints to ten different imaging centers:

“In today’s health-care climate, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often perceived as a commodity, a service where there are no meaningful differences in quality and thus an area in which patients can be advised to select a provider based on price and convenience alone.”

• In other words and more simply, you should be able to walk into any Imaging Center, get an MRI and the results should be the same everywhere.

Back to the study: “If this prevailing view is correct, then a patient should expect to receive the same radiological diagnosis regardless of which imaging center he or she visits, or which radiologist reviews the examination. Based on their extensive clinical experience, the authors believe that this assumption is not correct and that it can negatively impact patient care, outcomes, and costs.”

• In other words, the authors of this study do not believe you can walk into any Imaging Center and get the same diagnostic results. This is a big problem:

A 63-year-old woman with lumbar radiculopathy walks into 10 different imaging centers – what does she get? An MRI with a broad range of interpretive errors. . . patients may get a surgery they do not need or a surgery that addresses the wrong concern.

The researchers tested their troubling hypothesis that radiologists’ reports from multiple imaging centers performing a lumbar MRI examination on the same patient over a short period of time will have (one) marked variability in interpretive findings and (two) a broad range of interpretive errors.

So they sent a 63-year-old woman with a history of low back pain and right L5 radicular symptoms to get 10 MRIs

Across all 10 study examinations, there were 49 distinct findings reported related to the presence of a distinct pathology at a specific motion segment.

Based on that one statement alone, it is easy to understand the author’s conclusion to the study:

“This study found marked variability in the reported interpretive findings and a high prevalence of interpretive errors in radiologists’ reports of an MRI examination of the lumbar spine performed on the same patient at 10 different MRI centers over a short time period.

As a result, the authors conclude that where a patient obtains his or her MRI examination and which radiologist interprets the examination may have a direct impact on radiological diagnosis, subsequent choice of treatment, and clinical outcome.”

In other words, the patients may get a surgery they do not need or a surgery that addresses the wrong concern.

Do women, in general, have a greater risk for MRI variants? Especially for swelling and fluid build up?

Above is a case of women that had MRIs at different locations and received a series of different recommendations for treatment based on what was interpreted from these images.

A December 2018 study in the journal European Radiology (9) examined and highlighted the potential MRI imaging features that might be misleading.

In this study, the researchers examined a group of patient MRIs looking for “potential misleading edematous (swelling or fluid buildup) or structural changes associated with Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain anatomical variations.” The final group studied consisted of 157 patients.

• Unilateral or bilateral anatomical variations of the Sacroiliac (SI) joint were found in 50 patients (almost 1/3rd of the patients. Conditions described included accessory SIJ (simply a malalignment of the SI joint), iliosacral complex, and sacral (sacrum) defect
• A dysmorphic (defect or flaw) appearance of the Sacroiliac (SI) joint was found in 26 patients.

It’s the image, not the inflammation

The conclusion of this research: “Several anatomical variations of the Sacroiliac joint are relatively commonly seen on MR images, particularly in females. These variations may be associated with signal intensity changes, which may be mechanical and not necessarily inflammatory in nature.”

MRI has little value in helping patients to cure their back pain

In a recent study, university researchers published their findings in the online medical journal BioMed Central Musculoskeletal Disorders. (10) In their findings the doctors noted:

• MRI is regularly used by clinicians in making a decision of whether to treat a patient conservatively using physiotherapy, rehabilitation, and pain medication or consider surgical intervention for degenerative disc disease, or spinal stenosis.
• There is a documented trend of increasing excessive utilization and over-dependence on MRI in assessing lumbar spine disorders among clinicians.
• Based on the findings of this review, the lack of sufficient high-quality scientific evidence in support or against the use of MRI, the ongoing debate among experts regarding the cost, diagnostic utility, and accuracy of MRI in diagnosing nerve root compression and radiculopathy, clinicians should always correlate the findings of MRI with the patients’ medical history and clinical presentation in clinical decision making.

Doctors questioned MRI’s usefulness as a frequently performed test during follow-ups in patients with known lumbar-disc herniation and persistent symptoms of sciatica.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, (11) doctors questioned MRI’s usefulness as a frequently performed test during follow-ups in patients with known lumbar-disc herniation and persistent symptoms of sciatica. The association, they noted, between findings on MRI and clinical outcome is controversial, with several studies showing a high prevalence of disk herniation, ranging from 20 to 76%, in persons without any symptoms.

The doctors looked at patients who had MRIs performed before treatment and after treatment in two groups. Group one had surgery and group two did not and received conservative care instead.

The two groups were divided, regardless of the treatment into two groups: 1) Favorable outcome after treatment. 2) Unfavorable outcome after treatment.

After one year they compared MRIs “before and after.”

• In 35% of patients who had a favorable treatment outcome (reduction of symptoms), MRI still showed a herniated disc.
• In 33% of patients who reported a non-favorable outcome, MRI still showed a herniated disc.

What did the doctors conclude?

• For patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation at baseline who were treated with either surgery or conservative treatment and followed for 1 year, the presence of disc herniation on MRI at 1-year follow-up did not distinguish patients with a favorable clinical outcome from those with an unfavorable outcome. Even in the acute setting of sciatica, evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of MRI is not conclusive.

1 in 3 back pain patients should not even get an MRI

There are many people who suggest that technology is changing so fast that research on imaging studies is nearly outdated as soon as it is published. This is not so. Throughout this article, we have demonstrated that concerns about inappropriate MRIs, the impact on the patient’s mental well-being, and the subsequent poorer results that MRI interpretation can cause can make someone’s back pain worse.

In a 2008 study, (12) doctors at Weill Cornell Medical College and the Methodist Hospital Houston found that nearly 1 in 3 back pain patients should not even get an MRI because it may lead to unnecessary spinal surgery.  They wrote: “MRI alone may provide insufficient or inaccurate information upon which to base surgical/technical decisions in about 30% of cases (of back pain).” As we saw from the late 2021 study that we started this article with. This problem is still a problem.

A 2017 study (13) using the above 2008 study as a reference made these observations on the accuracy of sending patients to surgery based on their MRIs

• “Imaging results are frequently considered as hallmarks of disease by spine surgeons to plan their future treatment strategy. Numerous classification systems have been proposed to quantify or grade lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and thus objectify imaging findings.”
  • In other words, there is no standardization of how to read an MRI.
• “The clinical impact of the measured parameters remains, however, unclear.”
  • In other words, even if you had standardization of how to read an MRI, the findings could still be considered unclear.

To answer this problem, the researchers suggested that “image-guided local infiltrations (injections)” to target defined areas such as the facet joints could be a useful tool in correlating damage seen on MRI as the true cause of the patient’s pain.

• So 50 patients with chronic lumbar back pain who had an MRI received facet joint injections into their spine at points that the MRI said there was damage. What happened?
  • 27 patients showed no improvement
  • 16 reported good improvement
  • and 7 reported excellent improvement
  • MRI features assessed in this study did, however, not show any relevant correlation with reported pain after facet joint infiltration

Now the conclusion: “Despite the trend in evidence-based medicine to provide medical algorithms (a scoring system for MRIs to justify surgical intervention), our findings underline the continuing need for individualized spine care that, along with imaging techniques or targeted infiltrations, includes diagnostic dimensions such as good patient history and clinical examination to formulate a diagnosis.”

In other words, you cannot rely on the MRI alone.

This was also supported by a 2016 paper in the journal BioMed Central musculoskeletal disorders (14) which also cited the 2008 research and stated: “There is lack of sufficiently high-quality scientific evidence in support or against the use of MRI in diagnosing nerve root compression and radiculopathy. Therefore, clinicians should always correlate the findings of MRI with the patients’ medical history and clinical presentation in clinical decision making.”

Despite this evidence, patients are led to believe that the MRI is the final truth.

---

 “more than 50% of the patients indicated that they would undergo spine surgery based on abnormalities found on MRI, even without symptoms.”

And now we have arrived at a recent study from Wayne State University School of Medicine published in the Journal of Neurosurgery Spine. Here, doctors found that a surprisingly high percentage of patients have misconceptions regarding their MRI diagnosis and their treatment of lumbar spondylosis (degenerative – osteoarthritic changes in the spine). (degenerative – osteoarthritic changes in the spine).

The researchers asked patients questions designed to assess patient understanding of the role of MRI imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of low-back and leg pain, and patient perception of the indications for surgical compared with conservative management.

• More than 50% of the patients indicated that they would undergo spine surgery based on abnormalities found on MRI, even without symptoms. (15)

Researchers warn patients: STOP AGREEING TO SURGERY

Researchers at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, cited this same research from Wayne State University School of Medicine in their medical paper “How radiological findings can help or hinder patients’ recovery in the rehabilitation management of patients with low back pain: what can clinicians do?,” published in The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. (16) What did this research team have to say?

• “Patient’s conception of ‘positive’ imaging findings can also drive inappropriate treatment expectations. (The study by Wayne State University School of Medicine) reported that among patients referred to neurosurgery for symptoms of low back pain [spondylosis], 52% were willing to undergo surgery based on imaging abnormalities, even in the absence of symptoms.
• Knowledge of positive imaging findings seemed to push these patients toward surgery, even if it was not an appropriate treatment option.
• A significant proportion of patients believe that imaging findings are more important than physical examination findings and critical for their care.”

An amazing research paper appeared in May 2015. In this medical paper, doctors wanted to know what were the 100 most influential or frequently cited studies about lumbar spinal surgery.

Positive readings on MRI in pain negative patients

Many would think the most frequently cited research articles on back pain would be about spinal surgery techniques or spinal pain treatments. NO, it is about positive readings on MRI in pain-negative patients.

Clearly, the medical community recognizes that spinal surgery recommendations based solely on MRI findings are troubling.

Here are the findings:

• The top-ranked paper–cited more than 1,000 times–was a classic 1990 study showing that many people have common spinal abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans–despite having no back pain or other symptoms. (17)
• A 1994 study on a similar topic was the second most-cited paper, highlighting the need for a “clear correlation” of patients’ symptoms and imaging findings. (18)

The top two most cited papers were studies that questioned how to interpret an “abnormal” MRI in patients who had no pain and were written more than 25 years ago. (19) Nothing has changed since.

With this evidence, we tell many patients we don’t need an MRI

When we see a new patient with back pain, they will often ask:  “Do I need to get a ‘fresh’ MRI?”

We do not advocate the use of MRIs for diagnosing the cause of pain because the main reason surgeons perform spinal surgery is the above-mentioned findings of abnormalities on MRI scans. As stated, most MRI findings have nothing to do with why the person has pain and this is the reason for most back surgery failures.

“Less is More”

In 2012 study researchers at the University of Connecticut Health Center (20) noted that more than 85% of patients seen have low back pain that cannot be attributed to a specific disease or an anatomic abnormality and it is well known that imaging of asymptomatic patients often reveals anatomic abnormalities, such as herniated discs.

• “One of the risks of routinely imaging uncomplicated acute low back pain is patient “labeling”; no evidence exists that labeling patients with low back pain with a specific anatomic diagnosis improves outcomes.”
• Published data also document harms associated with early imaging for low back pain, unneeded follow-up tests for incidental findings, irradiation exposure, unnecessary surgery, and significant cost. Routine imaging should not be pursued in acute low back pain. Not imaging patients with acute low back pain will reduce harms and costs, without affecting clinical outcomes.”

The same thing was noted by JC Andersen of the University of Tampa in his paper published in the Journal of Athletic Training, (21) determining whether or not MRI should be ordered in treating athletes with back pain.

• “Available evidence indicates that immediate, routine lumbar spine imaging (MRI or CT) in patients with lower back pain and without features indicating a serious underlying condition did not improve outcomes compared with usual clinical care without immediate imaging.”

Despite the fact that low back pain MRIs made the top five list of overused tests and treatments, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians, and despite the fact that lumbar spine scans have a poor track record of connecting findings to clinical signs and symptoms, the number of scans has risen dramatically. (22)

In 2017, an editorial published in the journal Patient Safety in Surgery (23) accounted for this research when the authors asked: “Why do surgeons continue to perform unnecessary surgery?”

• Unnecessary surgery is any surgical intervention that is either not needed, not indicated, or not in the patient’s best interest when weighed against other available options, including conservative measures.
• Multiple clinical trials have shown that spinal fusions for back pain do not lead to improved long-term patient outcomes when compared to non-operative treatment modalities, including physical therapy and core strengthening exercises.
• In spite of these insights from high-quality trials, spinal fusion rates continue to dramatically increase in the United States.

Building on these opinions, a 2018 paper published in the Surgical Neurology International, (24) wrote: “The majority of updates, conventions, and meetings, particularly in neurosurgery, are no longer about how to improve the quality of care. Rather, they largely address new regulations, protocols, surveys, and how to maximize billing for surgical procedures, some of which are unnecessary, irrespective of outcomes.”

Asking patients “What hurts?” has significant diagnostic value above what an MRI suggests

In a study looking at ways to minimize failed back surgery, doctors suggest that “Factors such as a lack of knowledge or recognition of the common structure-specific pain referral patterns, poor clinical reasoning, inappropriate referral and predilection for popular management approaches also contribute to misdiagnosis and mismanagement.” (25)

Further that doctors should broaden their approach in managing low back pain by using patient questionnaires and health quality of life surveys. 

The amazing summary of this paper? Let’s ask the patient about their back pain.

In recent research, investigators found that talking to patients about their back pain could have significant diagnostic value. Doctors explored patient diagnosis in nerve root compression in men. Things that help doctors were answers to questions such as “pain worse in the leg than in the back,” and “a non-sudden onset.” (26) Things that could not be determined by an MRI.

This research was expanded on in a 2018 study published in the medical journal Chiropractic and Manual Therapies. (27) Here researchers suggested: “The diagnostic accuracy of CT, myelography, and MRI of today is unknown, as we found no studies evaluating today’s more advanced imaging techniques. Concerning the older techniques, we found moderate diagnostic accuracy for all CT, myelography, and MRI, indicating a large proportion of false positives and negatives.”

One of the most difficult things to tell a patient with significant back pain is that the MRI may not be telling the true story.

One of the most difficult things to tell a patient with significant back pain is that the MRI may not be telling the true story. This, despite an abundance of research suggesting it is not possible to accurately predict who spinal fusion will or won’t work for, using standardizing radiological scans:

• “No subset of patients with chronic low back pain could be identified for whom spinal fusion is a predictable and effective treatment. Best evidence does not support the use of current tests for patient selection in clinical practice.”[28]
• “Although MRI is appealing, its utility in assessing fusion remains unproven.”[29]

Reliance on MRI for determining surgical treatment for spinal pain has been shown to be faulty, inaccurate, and leads to unnecessary surgery. This is why it is very important that the patient seek an opinion from a doctor who performs a physical examination to determine the exact cause of pain.

In one research study, doctors said that nearly one in four patients who had a lumbar discectomy had positive scans for recurrent disc herniation following the surgery, the majority of which displayed no pain symptoms.

MRI validated disc herniation which did not cause pain or other symptoms was not associated with clinical consequences in two years following surgery. Clinically silent (patient’s not reporting) recurrent disc herniation is common after lumbar discectomy.

In other words, doctors are telling each other that when they order an MRI within the first 2 years of discectomy, they should expect that the MRI will show abnormalities that are of no consequence to the patient and that they should not rush to surgery. [30]

CT scans in patients under the age of 40 may lead to improper diagnosis and improper treatment

A 2017 study from researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel (31) suggested that CT scans in patients under the age of 40 may lead to improper diagnosis and improper treatment.

Here are the learning points of their research:

• A total of 484 lumbar spine CT examinations (272 men, 212 women; average age, 31 years; age range, 18-40 years) of patients with low back pain in which the entire sacroiliac joint or Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain was visualized were retrospectively reviewed.
• Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain was scored (consensus) by two senior radiologists (study reading) for the presence of post-inflammatory structural SIJ findings or other SIJs alterations.
• The original reports were compared to the study reading. Fifty CT examinations were re-evaluated for reliability assessment
• Results
  • A total of 150 (31%) abnormal Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain examinations were registered
  • suspected sacroiliitis = 50 (10.2%);
  • definite sacroiliitis = 16 (3.3%);
  • osteitis-condensans-ilii (soft-tissue hardening) = 38 (7.8%);
  • diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis = 24 (5%);
  • degenerative changes = 22 (4.5%);
  • accessory SIJ = 22 (4.5%);
  • and tumor = 1.

“Total diagnostic accuracy for these reports only and for the entire readings were 49% and 69%, respectively, and 13% and 1.3%, respectively, for the pathological findings.”

• The Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain was referenced 39 times (8.0%) in the original readings: pathological findings (n = 15); and normal Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain (n = 24). Total diagnostic accuracy for these reports only and for the entire readings were 49% and 69%, respectively, and 13% and 1.3%, respectively, for the pathological findings.
• Conclusion Sacroiliitis and other SIJ alterations are prevalent in young individuals with low back pain, albeit, the majority of these alterations are not recognized nor reported by senior radiologists thus may delay efficacious treatment.

Physical examination

At Caring Medical, we perform a physical examination of each and every patient, even those who bring in MRI or X-ray results, to determine the exact cause of pain. We then choose the best course of Prolotherapy treatment to heal the injury and rid the patient of pain. The average patient receives 3-6 treatments spaced four weeks apart. So if your doctor prescribes an MRI, take caution. Your MRI could be your Failed Back Surgery cause. A physical examination is essential in diagnosing pain. For more information on the combined use of PRP and Prolotherapy please see Prolotherapy treatments for lumbar instability and low back pain.

If you have questions about back pain, get help and information from our Caring Medical Staff

1 Rajasekaran S, Pushpa BT, Ananda KB, Prasad A, Rishi MK. The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of’clinical reporting’: results from an RCT and blinded trials. European Spine Journal: Official Publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2021 Mar 21. [Google Scholar]
2 Traeger AC, Reed BJ, O’Connor DA, Hoffmann TC, Machado GC, Bonner C, Maher CG, Buchbinder R. Clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ open. 2018 Feb 1;8(2):e019470. [Google Scholar]
3 Sharma S, Traeger AC, Reed B, Hamilton M, O’Connor DA, Hoffmann TC, Bonner C, Buchbinder R, Maher CG. Clinician and patient beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ open. 2020 Aug 1;10(8):e037820. [Google Scholar]
4 Sharma S, Traeger AC, Tcharkhedian E, Harrison J, Hersch JK, Pickles K, Harris IA, Maher CG. “I would not go to him”: Focus groups exploring community responses to a public health campaign aimed at reducing unnecessary diagnostic imaging of low back pain. Health Expectations. 2021 Apr;24(2):648-58. [Google Scholar]
5 Gidwani R, Sinnott P, Avoundjian T, Lo J, Asch SM, Barnett PG. Inappropriate ordering of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging: are providers choosing wisely?. The American journal of managed care. 2016 Feb;22(2):e68-76. [Google Scholar]
6 Nevedal AL, Lewis ET, Wu J, Jacobs J, Jarvik JG, Chou R, Barnett PG. Factors influencing primary care providers’ unneeded lumbar spine MRI orders for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain: a qualitative study. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2019 Dec 12:1-8. [Google Scholar]
7 Yates M, Oliveira CB, Galloway JB, Maher CG. Defining and measuring imaging appropriateness in low back pain studies: a scoping review. European Spine Journal. 2020 Mar;29(3):519-29. [Google Scholar]
8 Herzog R, Elgort DR, Flanders AE, Moley PJ. Variability in diagnostic error rates of 10 MRI centers performing lumbar spine MRI examinations on the same patient within a 3-week period. The Spine Journal. 2017 Apr 30;17(4):554-61.  [Google Scholar]
9 El Rafei M, Badr S, Lefebvre G, Machuron F, Capon B, Flipo RM, Cotten A. Sacroiliac joints: anatomical variations on MR images. European radiology. 2018 Dec 1;28(12):5328-37. [Google Scholar]
10 Tawa N, Rhoda A, Diener I. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting lumbo-sacral nerve root compromise: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2016;17(1):386. [Google Scholar]
11 el Barzouhi A, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL, Lycklama à Nijeholt GJ,et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in follow-up assessment of sciatica. Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):999-1007. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1209250. [Google Scholar]
12 Weiner BK, Patel R. The accuracy of MRI in the detection of Lumbar Disc Containment. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2008, 3:46 [Google Scholar]
13 Hofmann UK, Keller RL, Walter C, Mittag F. Predictability of the effects of facet joint infiltration in the degenerate lumbar spine when assessing MRI scans. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12(1):180. Published 2017 Nov 21. doi:10.1186/s13018-017-0685-x [Google Scholar]
14 Tawa N, Rhoda A, Diener I. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting lumbo-sacral nerve root compromise: a systematic literature review. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2016 Dec;17(1):1-7. [Google Scholar]
15 Franz EW, Bentley JN, Yee PP, Chang KW, Kendall-Thomas J, Park P, Yang LJ. Patient misconceptions concerning lumbar spondylosis diagnosis and treatment. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 May;22(5):496-502. doi: 10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14537. Epub 2015 Feb 27. [Google Scholar]
16 Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Longtin C, Brismée JM. How radiological findings can help or hinder patients’ recovery in the rehabilitation management of patients with low back pain: what can clinicians do? [Google Scholar]
17 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. 1990 Mar;72(3):403-8. [Google Scholar]
18 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. 1994 Jul 14;331(2):69-73. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. [Google Scholar]
19 Steinberger J1, Skovrlj B, Caridi JM, Cho SK. The top 100 classic papers in lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 May 15;40(10):740-7. [Google Scholar]
20 Srinivas SV, Deyo RA, Berger ZD Application of “Less Is More” to Low Back Pain. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(11):1-5. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1838 [Google Scholar]
21 Andersen JC. Is immediate imaging important in managing low back pain? J Athl Train. 2011 Jan-Feb;46(1):99-102. [Google Scholar]
22 Emery DJ, et al “Overuse of magnetic resonance imaging” JAMA Intern Med 2013 [Google Scholar]
23 Stahel PF, VanderHeiden TF, Kim FJ. Why do surgeons continue to perform unnecessary surgery? Patient Saf Surg. 2017 Jan 13;11:1. doi: 10.1186/s13037-016-0117-6. PMID: 28096899; PMCID: PMC5234149. [Google Scholar]
24 Ghaly RF, Knezevic NN. What happened to “Patient first” and “Do no harm” medical principles? Surg Neurol Int. 2018 Aug 29;9:176. doi: 10.4103/sni.sni_447_17. PMID: 30221021; PMCID: PMC6130150. [Google Scholar]
25 Monie AP, Fazey PJ, Singer KP. Low back pain misdiagnosis or missed diagnosis: Core principles. Man Ther. 2015 Oct 19. pii: S1356-689X(15)00193-9. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2015.10.003. [Google Scholar]
26 Verwoerd AJ, Peul WC, Willemsen SP, Koes BW, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL, el Barzouhi A, Luijsterburg PA, Verhagen AP. Diagnostic accuracy of history taking to assess lumbosacral nerve root compression. Spine J. 2014 Sep 1;14(9):2028-37. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.11.049. Epub 2013 Dec 8. [Google Scholar]
27 Kim JH, van Rijn RM, van Tulder MW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic imaging for lumbar disc herniation in adults with low back pain or sciatica is unknown; a systematic review. Chiropr Man Therap. 2018;26:37. Published 2018 Aug 21. doi:10.1186/s12998-018-0207-x [Google Scholar]
28 Willems P. Decision making in surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: the performance of prognostic tests to select patients for lumbar spinal fusion.Acta Orthop Suppl. 2013 Feb;84(349):1-35. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.753565. [Google Scholar]
28 Selby MD, Clark SR, Hall DJ, Freeman BJ. Radiologic assessment of spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012 Nov;20(11):694-703. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-20-11-694. [Google Scholar]
30 Lebow RL, Adogwa O, Parker SL, Sharma A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ.Asymptomatic same-site recurrent disc herniation after lumbar discectomy: results of a prospective longitudinal study with 2-year serial imaging.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Dec 1;36(25):2147-51. [Google Scholar]
31 Klang E, Lidar M, Lidar Z, Aharoni D, Eshed I. Prevalence and awareness of sacroiliac joint alterations on lumbar spine CT in low back pain patients younger than 40 years. Acta Radiol. 2017 Apr;58(4):449-455. [Google Scholar]
32 Sajid IM, Parkunan A, Frost K. Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care. BMJ open quality. 2021 Jul 1;10(3):e001287. [Google Scholar]
33 Krogh SB, Jensen TS, Rolving N, Thomsen JN, Hansen CB, Werenberg CH, Rasmussen E, Carlson R, Jensen RK. Appropriateness of referrals from primary care for lumbar MRI. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 2022 Dec;30(1):1-0. [Google Scholar]

This article was update November 4, 2022

 

Were you recommended SURGERY?
Get a 2nd opinion now!

WHY TO AVOID:

• Surgery
• NSAIDs
• Cortisone Shots
• R.I.C.E.

We are an out-of-network provider. Treatments discussed on this site may or may not work for your specific condition.
© 2023 Caring Medical | All Rights Reserved | Disclaimer