IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i16p10158-d889773.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Impact of Modic Changes on Operative Treatment in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mark J. Lambrechts

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Parker Brush

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Tariq Z. Issa

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Gregory R. Toci

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Jeremy C. Heard

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Amit Syal

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Meghan M. Schilken

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Jose A. Canseco

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Christopher K. Kepler

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

  • Alexander R. Vaccaro

    (Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA)

Abstract

Modic changes (MCs) are believed to be potential pain generators in the lumbar and cervical spine, but it is currently unclear if their presence affects postsurgical outcomes. We performed a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies evaluating cervical or lumbar spine postsurgical outcomes in patients with documented preoperative MCs were included. A total of 29 studies and 6013 patients with 2688 of those patients having preoperative MCs were included. Eight included studies evaluated cervical spine surgery, eleven evaluated lumbar discectomies, nine studied lumbar fusion surgery, and three assessed lumbar disc replacements. The presence of cervical MCs did not impact the clinical outcomes in the cervical spine procedures. Moreover, most studies found that MCs did not significantly impact the clinical outcomes following lumbar fusion, lumbar discectomy, or lumbar disc replacement. A meta-analysis of the relevant data found no significant association between MCs and VAS back pain or ODI following lumbar discectomy. Similarly, there was no association between MCs and JOA or neck pain following ACDF procedures. Patients with MC experienced statistically significant improvements following lumbar or cervical spine surgery. The postoperative improvements were similar to patients without MCs in the cervical and lumbar spine.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark J. Lambrechts & Parker Brush & Tariq Z. Issa & Gregory R. Toci & Jeremy C. Heard & Amit Syal & Meghan M. Schilken & Jose A. Canseco & Christopher K. Kepler & Alexander R. Vaccaro, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Modic Changes on Operative Treatment in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:16:p:10158-:d:889773
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/10158/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/10158/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christofer Herlin & Per Kjaer & Ansgar Espeland & Jan Sture Skouen & Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde & Jaro Karppinen & Jaakko Niinimäki & Joan Solgaard Sørensen & Kjersti Storheim & Tue Secher Jensen, 2018. "Modic changes—Their associations with low back pain and activity limitation: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-27, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:16:p:10158-:d:889773. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.