Boyun Ağrısına Manyetik Rezonans Görüntüleme Şart Mı?

Amaç Boyun ağrısı olan hastalarda ekonomik olarak maliyeti yüksek olan manyetik rezonans görüntüleme bulgularının klinik ile ilişkisini araştırmayı amaçladık. Materyal ve Metod Çalışmaya Ocak-Aralık 2019 tarihlerinde boyun ağrısı şikayeti ile başvuran ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleme yapılan hastalar dahil edildi. Görüntüleme normal olan ve olmayanlar olarak iki gruba ayrıldı ve yaş, cinsiyet ve ağrı skaları karşılaştırıldı. Ayrıca en sık gözlenen tekli ve çoklu bulgular değerlendirildi. Bulgular Boyun ağrısı şikayeti olup görüntüleme de normal olan hastaların sayısı 21; patolojik bulgu olanların sayısı 130 idi. Yaş ortalamaları sırasıyla, 37.23±14.96 ile 45.66±13.24 olup aradaki fark gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p=0,023). Ağrı skalası; 7.09±0.94 ile 7.03±1.20 olarak bulundu, gruplar arasında istatistiksel fark gözlenmedi (p=0,782). Görüntülemesi normal olan grupta 15 kadın 6 erkek; diğer grupta da 99 kadın 31 erkek hasta vardı; cinsiyet açısından gruplar arasında fark gözlenmedi (p=0,411). Tek görüntüleme bulgusu olan hasta sayısı 54 olup; 21 hasta ile en fazla olan görüntüleme bulgusu bulging olup Protrüzyon-Düzleşme 25 (%19.2) birlikteliği en fazla idi. Sonuç Boyun ağrısı şikayeti olan hastaların ağrı ve görüntüleme bulguları arasında ilişki gözlenmemesi bu hastalarda ayrıntılı öykü ve fizik bakının, ekonomik maliyeti yüksek olan manyetik rezonans görüntülemeden daha önemli olabileceğini düşündürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Boyun ağrısı, manyetik rezonans görüntüleme, ağrı, Boyun ağrısı, manyetik rezonans görüntüleme, ağrı

Is Magnetic Resonance İmaging Necessary For Neck Pain?

Background We aimed to investigate the clinical relevance of magnetic resonance imaging findings which is the economically expensive, in patients with neck pain. Materials and Methods The patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging between January and December 2019 with the complaint of neck pain were included in the study. Imaging was divided into two groups as normal and non-normal; Age, gender and pain scales were compared. In addition, the most common single and multiple findings were evaluated. Results The number of patients with normal imaging was 21; The number of patients with pathological imaging were 130. The mean ages were 37.23±14.96 and 45.66±13.24, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant between the groups (p=0.023). Pain scale; It was found to be 7.09±0.94 and 7.03±1.20, and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p=0.782). In the group with normal imaging, 15 females and 6 males; there were 99 female and 31 male patients in the other group; There was no difference between the groups in terms of gender (p=0.411). The number of patients with a single imaging finding was 54; Bulging was the most common imaging finding with 21 patients, and the association of Protrusion-Straightening 25 (19.2%) was the highest. Conclusions The lack of a relationship between pain and imaging findings in patients with neck pain suggests that detailed history and physical examination may be more important than magnetic resonance imaging, which has a high cost.

Keywords:

Neck pain, magnetic resonance imaging, pain,

PDF

___

1. Guzman J, Haldeman S, Carroll LJ, Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Peloso P, Nordin M, Cassidy JD, Holm LW, Côté P, van der Velde G, Hogg-Johnson S; Bone and Joint Decade 2000- 2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Clinical Practice implications of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders; from concepts and findings to recommendations. Spine; 2008;33(4):S199–213.
2. Honet JC, Ellenberg MR. What you always wanted to know about the history and physical examination of neck pain but were afraid to ask. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2003;14(3):473–91.
3. Borenstein DG. Neck Pain, Appendix B. In: Borenstein DG, editor. Low Back and Neck Pain, 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Comp; 2004
4. Alexander EP. History, physical examination, and differential diagnosis of neck pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2011;22(3):383–93.
5. Croft PR, Lewis M, Papageorgiou AC, Thomas E, Jayson MIV, Macfarlane GJ, Silman AJ. Risk factors for neck pain: a longitudinal study in the general population. Pain. 2001 Sep;93(3):317-325.
6. Palmer KT, Smedley J. Work relatedness of chronic neck pain with physical findings--a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2007;33(3):165-91.
7. Rubinstein SM, van Tulder M. A best-evidence review of diagnostic procedures for neck and low-back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2008;22(3):471–82.
8. Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Suda K, Yamagata M, Ueta T, Kato F. Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of the cervical spines in 1211 asymptomatic subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Mar 15;40(6):392-8.
9. Jensen RK, Jensen TS, Grøn S, et al. Prevalence of MRG findings in the cervical spine in patients with persistent neck pain based on quantification of narrative MRG reports. Chiropr Man Therap. 2019;27:13.
10. Boden SD,McCowin PR,DavisOD,et al.Abnormal magnetic resonance seans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects.J Bone Joint Surg Am.1990;8:1178-1184.
11. Hill L, Aboud D, Elliott J, Magnussen J, Sterling M, Steffens D, Hancock MJ. Do findings identified on magnetic resonance imaging predict future neck pain? A systematic review. Spine J. 2018;18(5):880-891.