CLASSIFICATION, DIAGNOSTIC

IMAGING, AND IMAGING

CHARACTERIZATION OF A LUMBAR
HERNIATED DISK
Radiologic Clinics of North America - Volume 38, Issue 6 (November 2000) Copyright 2000 W. B. Saunders Company
IMAGING OF LOW BACK PAIN I

CLASSIFICATION, DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, AND IMAGING CHARACTERIZATION OF A

LUMBAR HERNIATED DISK

Pierre C. Milette MD, FRCPC

Department of Radiology, Hopital Saint-Luc, Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada
Address reprint requests to
Pierre C. Milette, MD, FRCPC
Department of Radiology
Hopital Saint-Luc
Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal
1058 Saint-Denis Street
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H2X 3J4

To communicate their findings, scientists must assign names to the object of their
study and then arrange them in some order. This process of naming and arranging
is called classification. Classification is a descriptive arrangement that allows one
not only to communicate about included objects, but also to identify these objects
consistently for archiving and retrieval.[25] Uniformity of classification is essential to
compare research results regarding diagnosis and treatment of disk disorders. Spine
surgeons resort to an impressive number of different terms to describe the same
operating room findings.[19] Any discussion of lumbar disk herniations, whether
related to diagnosis or management, must define clearly its terminology regarding
the pathologic condition of a disk.[30] The absence or disparity of morphologic or
pathologic term definitions in the scientific literature is such that comparing
published results or meta-analysis is very often impossible.[35] During the last decade,
several articles have dealt with the nomenclature and classification of disk

abnormalities in relation to the interpretation of imaging studies.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [35] [38] [46] [51]
[79] [81] [93]
Classifications and glossaries have also been proposed by the American
Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons[2] and the North American Spine Society.[21] None
of the proposed schemes has succeeded in generating a universal consensus,
however, and the usage of language still varies greatly, causing confusion and
controversy.[3] The historical lack of interest of traditional physicians, fundamental
anatomists, and imaging specialists for the deemed trivial and vulgar issue of low
back pain is probably responsible to some extent for this situation.[47] We are still
unclear about spinal anatomy, especially in reference to spinal ligaments and
membranes.[73] [89] Controversies regarding surgical indications have created
undeniable biases. To reassure patients about the good prognosis of an acute back
pain episode, certain terms (e.g., ruptured disks) have been considered too alarming
by some nonoperative care physicians.[16] Socioeconomic and legal considerations
have unfortunately colored many scientific debates and, in many parts of the world,
the presence or absence of the term disk herniation in an imaging report has a very
significant impact in a litigation context. Some authors have suggested abandoning
the term herniation because of its legal implications, but this word has been used in
so many scientific, clinical, and lay discussions of the past seven decades and is so
firmly established in various lexicons as to make proscription impossible.[53]

DEFINITION OF A DISK HERNIATION

In Dorland's Medical Dictionary [18] herniation is defined as an abnormal protrusion of an

organ or other body structure through a defect or natural opening in a covering,
membrane, muscle, or bone. This definition has been generally accepted over centuries.
The definition of the term disk herniation used by radiologists has evolved over the years,
particularly during the last decade. This term initially meant a focal extension of nucleus
pulposus beyond the margin of the disk.[43] The term herniation of the intervertebral disk
was synonymous with herniation of the nucleus pulposus. This restrictive definition has
been found impractical because it is generally impossible for observers of imaging
studies to determine the exact nature of the material coming out of a disk space. Even
surgeons, in the operating room, find it difficult to distinguish torn anulus fragments from
nuclear material especially in situations where a herniation has generated an important
inflammatory reaction. The definition proposed by Herzog[30] is more realistic: focal
displacement of nuclear, anular, or end plate material beyond the normal peripheral
margins of the disk delimited by the margins of the vertebral body end plates. The term
end plates refers to the entire surface of the vertebral body, and includes both the central
cartilaginous plate and the peripheral ring epiphysis. The qualifier normal, in reference to
the peripheral margin of the disk, is important and is meant to refer to the initial or
original limits of the adult intervertebral space, exclusive of any osteophytes that may
have developed. This initial boundary may have been modified by the presence of
vertebral body osteophytes. A chronic localized displacement of disk material
accompanied by marginal localized vertebral body osteophytes still qualifies as a disk
herniation. The bony end plates also delineate the upper and lower boundaries of the

normal intervertebral disk, and displacement of disk material inside a vertebral body
through a break in the end plate may be properly named an intravertebral disk herniation.
Despite the controversies associated with disk nomenclature, the general modern
definition of disk herniation just discussed has gained general acceptance by imaging
specialists. Debates most often arise as to whether or not a particular image in a given
individual qualifies for this theoretical definition because of the impact on management
or compensation previously discussed. Using CT or even MR imaging, some herniations
can mimic symmetric or asymmetric disk bulging because the disk material coming out
of the disk space, at the disk level, is confined by the anterior or posterior longitudinal
ligament and often generates the illusion of a process that is not focal. Because of this,
the definition of the disk herniation should probably be broadened to localized
displacement of nuclear, anular, or end plate material beyond the normal limits of the
disk space. The term localized is meant in opposition to generalized, the latter term being
reasonably applied to displacement of disk material involving more than 50% (180
degrees) of the disk periphery. Localized displacement in the axial (horizontal) plane can
be further described as focal, signifying that less than 25% of the disk circumference is
involved, or broad-based meaning between 25% and 50% of the disk circumference. As
was emphasized by Mink et al,[53] the term disk herniation, like all anatomic descriptive
terms of disk abnormalities, should not by itself imply disability, cause, relation to injury,
relation to pain, or the need for treatment or reimbursement. On the other hand, a bulging
disk may be defined as a disk in which the contour of the outer anulus extends, or appears
to extend, in the horizontal (axial) plane, beyond the edges of the disk space, usually over
greater than 50% (180 degrees) of the disk circumference.
Even though the modern definition of disk herniation can apply to all intervertebral disks,
this article deals exclusively with lumbar disk herniations. Some aspects that are
discussed can apply to thoracic and cervical disks but, because of the important anatomic
differences between the different spinal segments, all extrapolations must be conducted
very cautiously. Even in the lumbar area, there are significant anatomic differences
between upper and lower vertebrae and certain concepts, like the lateral recess syndrome,
are really meaningful only in relation to the L4, L5, and S1 vertebrae.[58]

CLASSIFICATION OF A HERNIATED LUMBAR DISK

Some classifications of disk herniations that have been proposed to imaging specialists
have not met with success essentially because categories were defined in terms of
microscopic anatomy and pathology.[2] [66] Such models were actually suitable for
pathologists performing cryotome sections on postmortem specimens and, to some
degree, for surgeons reporting operating room observations, but were not really useful for
radiologists describing abnormal findings on myelograms, diskograms, CT, or MR
images. Conceivably, a classification of lumbar disk herniations could be based on the
clinical staging of the disease. Stage 1: low back pain radiating pain; no objective sign.
Stage 2: low back pain radiating pain; segmental pain; muscle spasm. Stage 3: low back
pain radiating pain; signs of dural or radicular irritation. Stage 4: low back pain

radiating pain; neurologic deficit.[47] Although useful for patient management, this model
is not adequate for imaging study interpretation. A useful nomenclature needs to propose
categories based on observable distinctions that take into consideration the limitations of
present-day imaging techniques.
Main Categories of Noninfectious Disk Abnormalities

Ideally, a valid and useful system for classifying noninfectious disk abnormalities should
provide categories that correspond to real anatomic and pathologic entities and, if
possible, correspond to specific clinical situations. The system should be applicable to all
currently used imaging modalities. It should be simple to understand, to memorize, and to
teach. It should also be reliable and generate substantial intraobserver and interobserver
agreement in terms of Kappa statistics.[41] The nomenclature to describe disk lesions
demonstrated by imaging studies has been greatly influenced by our concepts of disk
degeneration throughout life (i.e., what is normal aging?) and our understanding of what
constitutes a disk lesion likely to generate clinical signs and symptoms. The
nomenclature we favor is directly related to our physiopathologic model. The clinical
concept that followed the description by Mixter and Barr[54] of herniation of the nucleus
pulposus through a ruptured anulus fibrosus was that, should this occur in a posterior or
posterolateral direction and encroach on the neural canal, cord or nerve root compression
may result with consequent segmental root pain and muscle spasm.[59] Because
compression of neural structures was believed to be the only logical explanation for pain,
associated or not with a neurologic deficit, imaging strategies have been developed over
the last 20 years with a clear focus on identifying displacement of disk material
associated with compression of neural structures.[28] [31] [32] [36] [74] [82] [86] [87] Classifications of
disk abnormalities that were associated with this concept have obviously been influenced
by this bias. In the early 1980s, for the interpretation of myelograms and the first
generation of high-resolution CT of the spine, a very simple terminology was proposed
that had essentially three categories: (1) the normal disk, (2) the bulging disk without
nerve root compression, and (3) the herniated disk with nerve root compression.[36] [85] The
definition of disk herniation was very restrictive because nerve root compression was
considered by some investigators a sine qua non condition to make the diagnosis. This
requirement appeared acceptable, however, because it was estimated that only 10% of
herniations occurred in a posterior central direction.[42] [87]
The validity of this model has been questioned in recent years and nerve root
compression has been found less important than inflammation in the genesis of painful
symptoms.[78] This relatively new concept has led to the development of two nomenclature
models based on very different perspectives.
The Morphologic Model
This model is essentially based on one parameter, the assessment of the disk contour to
determine the degree of disk extension beyond the interspace (DEBIT). [13] The categories
are normal disk, bulging disk, protrusion, and extrusion (Fig. 1) (Figure Not Available) .
Normal indicates no disk extension beyond the interspace. Bulge refers to
circumferential, symmetric DEBIT (around the end plates). Protrusion indicates focal or

asymmetric DEBIT into the canal, the base against the parent disk broader than any other
diameter of the protrusion. Extrusion means focal, obvious DEBIT, the base against the
parent disk narrower than any diameter of the extruding material itself, or no connection
between displaced disk material and parent disk. The use of the term herniation to
designate collectively protrusions and extrusions has been suggested,[15] but maintaining
the distinction may have some clinical relevance because extrusions are rarely found in
asymptomatic individuals, as opposed to protrusions and bulges.[34] It has also been argued
that the term extruded disk is less frightening and emotionally laden than disk herniation
or ruptured disk.[17] This classification is based on very simple geometric concepts and the
categories are mutually exclusive, but the line drawings in Figure 1 (Figure Not
Available) are misleading because they represent the disk as a two-dimensional structure.
Disk extrusions, such as the one depicted, are practically never seen at the disk level on
CT or MR imaging axial sections: large posterior displacement of disk material beyond
the margins of the intervertebral space still generally creates images corresponding to the
definition of a protrusion because they are outlined by the posterior longitudinal ligament
(Fig. 2) . Significant migration of disk material is usually necessary to generate a typical
extrusion image. Distinction between protrusions and extrusions, at the disk level, is very
often only possible on sagittal sections (Fig. 3) , and this distinction is not very practical
for the interpretation of CT because sagittal reconstructions are usually not part of the
routine imaging protocol. On CT or MR imaging, this distinction is difficult in the
presence of a narrow central spinal canal and very often impossible for foraminal
herniations (Fig. 4) .
Figure 1. (Figure Not Available) Morphologic nomenclature based on the assessment of the disk contour.
(From Milette PC: The proper terminology for reporting lumbar intervertebral disk disorders. AJNR Am J
Neuroradiol 18:1859-1866, 1997; with permission.)

Figure 2. Axial CT scan section through the L4-L5 disk space showing a relatively large posterior right
central displacement of disk material with dural sac compression and probable right L5 nerve root
compression. Although the overlying posterior longitudinal ligament complex (PLLC) is not seen, it
constrains the displaced disk material and is responsible for maintaining a protrusion shape.

Figure 3. When a relatively large amount of disk material is displaced, distinction between protrusion (A)
and extrusion (B or C) will generally only be possible on sagittal MR sections or sagittal CT scan
reconstructions. In C, although the shape of the displaced material is similar to that of a protrusion, the
greatest cranio-caudal diameter of the fragment is greater than the craniocaudal diameter of its base at the
level of the parent disk, and the lesion therefore qualifies as an extrusion.

Figure 4. Axial CT scan section through the upper portion of the L4-L5 foramina in a 45-year-old man.
Abnormal soft tissues likely representing displaced disk material are seen in the right foramen. The
material cannot be precisely delineated and the distinction between protrusion and extrusion is difficult. A
typical extrusion shape is practically never seen with foraminal herniations.

Despite its apparent simplicity, only moderate interobserver agreement has been reported
using this nomenclature in three independent studies.[13] [33] [48] It is also incomplete because
it considers exclusively the contour of the disk and the shape of the displaced disk
material. Disks demonstrating normal contour but abnormal central or peripheral signal
patterns have no place in this system, and associated vertebral body bone marrow
changes are completely ignored, even though the clinical relevancy of those changes has
been well demonstrated.[4] [48] [55] [57] [72] This nomenclature is unfortunately misleading
because it creates artificial pathologic entities. The bulging disk category is the most
problematic.[60] Obviously, a severely dessicated and atrophic disk may bulge diffusely as
the intervertebral space narrows with buckling of the anterior and posterior longitudinal

ligaments. But an impression has been unjustifiably derived from early postmortem
studies[86] that, even in young individuals, a disk with an intact anulus may be responsible
for a detectable bulge on axial CT sections. It has also been hypothesized that bulging
disks are caused by diffuse anular hyperlaxity, which occurs as a result of tears in
collagen bridges between the concentric anular fibers while these concentric fibers
remain intact.[15] This theory has never been proved because such collagen bridges
between the concentric fibers of the anulus have never been found.[45] It is important to
realize that a bulging disk is not an anatomic or pathologic entity: it is an image that
requires a differential diagnosis. It sometimes represents a normal anatomic variant; this
is often the case with the L5-S1 disk. On CT images, it is often an illusion caused by a
volume-averaging effect (Fig. 5) . It may be associated with remodeling of adjacent
vertebral bodies because of osteoporosis (Fig. 6) . It may of course result from chronic
disk deterioration and collapse. A bulging disk illusion is often created on CT by a
posterior anular disk rupture, with displaced disk material peeling off the posterior
longitudinal ligament and displacing it backward, creating a posterior wide base
protrusion that mimics diffuse symmetric disk bulging on both axial CT and MR imaging
sections, and is not differentiated from a bulging disk on sagittal MR images unless close
attention is paid to the anterior aspect of the disk (Fig. 7) . Except for the fact that
extrusions are rarely found in asymptomatic individuals,[34] this system does not really
provide categories that correspond to clinical entities.

Figure 5. A, Bulging disk appearance of the L4-L5 disk, shown on a 5-mm-thickness axial CT scan section,
in a 57-year-old woman. The height of the intervertebral space was preserved and there was no reactive
vertebral body end-plate modifications. This aspect is probably partly due to vertebral body remodeling
caused by osteoporosis, but is mostly created by volume averaging. (From Milette PC, Fontaine S, Daniels
C, et al: Imaging of Low Back Pain, CD-ROM, SSB Multimedia Medical Series, Montreal, 1997; with
permission.) B, Using 4- or 5-mm-thickness CT sections, an intermediate gray shade halo is often computer
generated by volume averaging of tissues with different attenuation coefficients in voxels, represented by
two-dimensional pixels, located at the disk space periphery. This creates the illusion of a three-dimensional
image demonstrating diffuse disk bulging. ST = slice thickness

Figure 6. Axial CT scan section of a L4-L5 disk in a 78-year-old man demonstrating diffuse disk bulging
caused by remodeling of the adjacent vertebral bodies due to osteoporosis. The intervertebral space was
normal in height and there were no reactive adjacent bony endplate modifications.

Figure 7. A, T2-weighted axial section of a L5-S1 disk showing a left posterolateral wide base protrusion
that can be easily confused with diffuse circumferential bulging. B, Corresponding T2-weighted left
paracentral and central sagittal sections demonstrating loss of the L5-S1 disk signal intensity with posterior
small left-central protrusion; the anterior aspect of the disk does not extend beyond the endplates and,
therefore, such a disk should not be labeled bulging disk.

The Pathoanatomic Model

As opposed to the previous model that can be applied only to the interpretation of CT and
MR imaging studies, this model can be used for the interpretation of all imaging
modalities, including plain films and diskograms.[47] [51] It consists of five categories that
are not mutually exclusive, so that different combinations are possible (Fig. 8) (Figure
Not Available) . The first three refer to the general state of the disk: (1) normal young
disk; (2) normal aging disk; and (3) deteriorated disk (formerly called the scarred disk).
The last two refer to localized lesions: anular tear and herniated disk. In this model, the
previously discussed definition of disk herniation proposed by Herzog[30] is applicable.
The use of this system requires an effort to distinguish the normal aging changes from
those of pathologic degeneration. Resnick and Niwayama[66] have emphasized the
differentiating features of two degenerative processes involving the intervertebral disk,
which had been previously described by Schmorl and Junghanns[75] : (1) spondylosis
deformans, which affects primarily the anulus fibrosus and bony ring epiphysis; and (2)
intervertebral osteochondrosis, which affects essentially the nucleus pulposus and the
vertebral body end plates.
Figure 8. (Figure Not Available) Schematic representation of a nomenclature based on a three-dimensional
assessment of the anatomic and pathologic characteristics of both disk and adjacent vertebral bodies. The
categories are not mutually exclusive and some combinations are possible. A, Categories related to the
general aspect of the disk: normal young disk (a), normal aging disk (b), deteriorated disk (c). B,
Categories related to local lesions: normal young disk (a), anular tear (b), herniated disk (c). (Adapted from
Milette PC: The proper terminology for reporting lumbar intervertebral disk disorders. AJNR Am J
Neuroradiol 18:1859-1866, 1997; with permission.)

There is convincing evidence in the scientific literature that the features of spondylosis
deformans represent the normal aging process, whereas intervertebral osteochondrosis
denotes true pathologic disk degeneration.[61] [71] [75] [83] [84] Schmorl and Junghanns[75] found
spondylotic changes in 60% of women and almost 80% of men over the age of 50. In a
series of 400 dried skeletons, Nathan[61] found anterior vertebral body osteophytes, which
constitute the main feature of spondylosis deformans, in 100% of individuals over age 40,
whereas posterior osteophytes were found in only 39% of individuals even after the age
of 80. Twomey and Taylor[83] [84] have found that loss of disk height is unusual in a normal
aging population and that loss of stature in the elderly is attributable to loss of
intervertebral body height rather than loss in disk height. During the normal aging
process, the mucoid matrix of the nucleus pulposus is progressively replaced by fibrous
tissue,[37] but the intervertebral height is preserved and the disk margins remain regular.
Dessication and thining of disks or "disks that bulge like an underinflated automobile
tire" are not typical of elderly spines. Slight symmetric bulging may occur if there has
been vertebral body remodeling resulting from osteoporosis. Small amounts of gas can be
detected on plain films or CT images near the insertion of the anulus on the ring
epiphysis, and this gas is probably located in transverse anular tears adjacent to the ring
epiphysis. During the fourth decade anterior and lateral marginal vertebral body
osteophytes constitute normal findings, comparable with having gray hair, but end plate
erosions with osteosclerosis, or chronic reactive bone marrow changes type 2 or 3 as
described by Modic et al,[57] should not be seen. Slight to moderate decrease in central
signal intensity can be detected on T2-weighted MR images as part of the normal aging
process, but the changes should involve uniformly all lumbar disks.

Deteriorated disks represent real pathologic degeneration, which is sometimes referred to

as chronic diskopathy. On microscopic examination, they show total structural
disorganization and general replacement of normal disk material by scar tissue. For this
reason, they were initially labeled scarred disks by the members of a joint committee on
spinal nomenclature created by the Quebec Association of Radiologists.[14] Because of
possible confusion with postoperative changes, the term deteriorated disk has been
proposed as an acceptable substitute. Strictly speaking, the term degeneration could be
used to designate this entity but this latter term has such a broad nonspecific meaning that
it is best avoided. The deteriorated disk is characterized by narrowing of the
intervertebral space, irregular disk contour generally associated with symmetric or
asymmetric bulging, abundant presence of gas in the central portion of the intervertebral
disk space, multidirectional osteophytes that do not respect the central spinal canal or the
foramina, end plate erosions with reactive osteosclerosis, and chronic bone marrow
changes. On T2-weighted MR images, the central disk signal intensity is usually
markedly decreased and the number of affected lumbar disks is variable. Even though
transverse, concentric, and radial anular tears have been identified on postmortem
specimens,[92] the anular tear category in this model refers essentially to the radial tears
that are generally demonstrated by diskography in symptomatic patients. For a more
precise description of those tears, this model may be supplemented by the Dallas
Discogram Description system,[70] with or without its recently proposed updates.[4] [72] [80]
It should be emphasized that the pathoanatomic model is not based on direct
identification of a particular geometric pattern, but on the anatomy and pathology that are
expected as a result of the analysis of specific criteria. Using this model, the conclusion
of any imaging report does not consist of terms related to the shape of the disk contour or
the displaced disk material, but on a pathologic diagnosis that should be presented with
an appropriate confidence level (possible, probable, or definite). The diagnosis of a
probable major radial anular tear may be inferred from the presence of a definite central
signal intensity loss because, as a result of diskographic MR imaging correlations, the
positive predictive value of this sign has been estimated at 96%.[48] The use of this model
requires an effort to understand the criteria allowing differentiation of normal aging from
true pathologic degeneration, so this system is slightly more complicated than the
morphologic model. Its reliability has never been tested. Some intraobserver or
interobserver disagreement would probably occur trying to distinguish anular tears
without herniation from anular tears with small herniations. With respect to
correspondance to clinical situations, this scheme, like the morphologic model, has
limited interest: it has been shown that disks demonstrating the features of the
deteriorated disk are likely to be responsible for symptoms, but this relationship has been
statistically established to be significant only for the L4-L5 disk.[24]
Which Model Should Be Used?
In other areas of diagnostic radiology, the aim of image analysis is always to predict what
the pathologist would find if he or she could be provided with an adequate specimen
immediately following the imaging study: radiologic diagnoses are presented with a
pathologic perspective. There is no reason why the reporting of disk disorders should be

any different. Terms like bulging disk are meaningless to a pathologist and I personally
favor the pathoanatomic model. Nomenclature standardization, however, is not a task that
can be achieved by an individual or even a single group of authors.[12] To have any impact,
recommendations have to emanate from well established national or international
societies. The multiplicity of scientific societies with an interest in the spine all over the
world creates a special problem but new joint committees have recently been set up,
combining efforts to come up with a practical unified system that it is hoped could be
proposed jointly by the North American Spine Society, the American Academy of
Orthopedic Surgeons, the American Academy of Neurological Surgeons, the American
Society of Spine Radiology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology. Agreeing, in
North America, on a classification of disk disorders that could gain universal acceptance,
like the TNM classification of neoplastic diseases, would be a major achievement.
Meanwhile, the choice of the nomenclature is up to the best judgement of each practicing
radiologist and the essential issue, in a given hospital or community practice, remains
clear communication between radiologists and referring physicians by way of a local
agreement as to the meaning of words.
A major problem frequently occurs because observers of imaging studies try to combine
elements of the morphologic classification with those of the pathoanatomic classification.
Trying to differentiate a bulging disk (morphologic qualifier) from a disk herniation
(pathologic diagnosis) cannot work because a bulging disk aspect is a common feature of
the aging disk, the deteriorated disk, and some posterior central disk herniations (Fig. 9) .
Trying to make the distinction is doomed to failure because it defies formal logic. On the
other hand, it is theoretically possible to differentiate a radial anular tear (without
herniation) from a disk herniation because these are two different pathologic entities,
although one may be the continuum of the other. It is best to adopt either one of the two
systems and avoid trying to straddle the two. A general classification of disk disorders
attempting to conciliate the morphologic and the pathoanatomic model is proposed in
Table 1 .

Figure 9. A bulging disk aspect often conceals a posterior central herniation. A, Complete rupture of the
outer anular fibers allowing nuclear material to escape and peel off the posterior longitudinal ligament (and
sometimes a few intact peripheral anular fibers) from the torn disk, creating a detectable focal or
asymmetric extension of the disk margin beyond the interspace, which qualifies as a protrusion. B, With
more gelatinous nuclear material escaping underneath the rigid posterior longitudinal ligament, the focal
bulge is no longer detectable as its radius increases and, if the tear occurs in the posterior midline or paramedial direction, the aspect mimics symmetric disk extension beyond the interspace. C, Since, in most
cases, only the outline of a diffusely hypointense disk is perceived on MR images, this creates the illusion
of circumferential disk bulging on axial sections. D, The real nature of a bulging disk of this type may be
suspected by scrutinizing the sagittal sections and appreciating that, unless one is dealing with a chronically
degenerated scarred disk, the bulge is not symmetric but limited to the posterior aspect of the disk.

TABLE 1 -- GENERAL
CLASSIFICATION OF DISK LESIONS
Normal (excluding aging changes)
Congenital/developmental variants
Inflammation/infection
Neoplasia
Degenerative/traumatic:
Degeneration:
Anular tear
Herniation:

Protrusion
Extrusion

Degeneration:

Spondylosis
deformans
Intervertebral
osteochondrosis

Further Qualifying the Displaced Disk Material Beyond the Disk Space

Regardless of the basic system that is used, the type of herniation should be assessed. The
volume and location of the displaced disk material beyond the normal peripheral margin
of the intervertebral space also need to be specified. In certain cases, it is also possible to
determine the composition of this material. For the sake of simplicity, the term herniation
is used consistently in the remainder of this article to refer to all displaced disk material,
but what is discussed can also be applied to protrusions and extrusions, if one wants to
use the morphologic nomenclature.
Type of Herniation
Upward or downward migration of nuclear material may occur through a break in a
vertebral body end plate, creating an intravertebral herniation, sometimes referred to as
an intraspongy herniation or a Schmorl's node[67] (Fig. 10) . Although a herniation
occurring in any horizontal direction is likely to cause symptoms because of the presence
of pain-sensitive nerve endings in the outer anulus,[7] [8] [65] herniations occurring in a
posterior or posterolateral direction deserve special consideration because of the added
possibility of dural sac or individual nerve root compression.

Figure 10. Various types of intravertebral herniations (Schmorl's nodes). A, Intravertebral herniation
through the inferior end plate of the L3 vertebral body demonstrated by diskography in a 35-year-old man
suffering from chronic low back pain. The patient's typical pain was reproduced during injection and the
lesion was considered responsible for the patient's symptoms. B, T2-weighted sagittal section
demonstrating an intravertebral herniation through the inferior end plate of the L4 vertebral body in a 24year-old woman presenting with chronic low back pain. The high signal intensity of the lesion associated
with the loss of normal central signal intensity of the parent disk suggests that the lesion is a bona fide
acquired intraspongy herniation and not just a developmental defect. C, T2-weighted sagittal section
demonstrating an intravertebral herniation through the inferior end plate of the L3 vertebral body (arrow).
Because both the herniation and the parent disk show normal signal intensity, the abnormality was

considered a probably asymptomatic developmental defect.

Other characteristics of disk herniations have become relevant with the development of
new therapeutic possibilities (e.g., chemonucleolysis and percutaneous diskectomy). The
term sequestration is confusing and has often been used to indicate displacement of disk
material away from the parent disk. The term sequestered disk should be used restrictedly
to designate a fragment of diskal tissue that has migrated from the disk space and has no
connection by diskal tissue to the disk of origin.[20] [21] [42] Sequestration refers to loss of
continuity with disk tissue still present in the intervertebral disk space. The term
migration has a broader meaning, indicating displacement of disk material away from the
edge of the rent in the outer anulus, either in the central spinal canal at the disk level, or
above or below the disk level. This difference is illustrated in Figure 11 . The terms
communicating and noncommunicating derive from a different perspective and are
mostly used in the context of intradiskal therapeutic injections: They refer to the
interruption of the periphery of the disk allowing fluid injected into the disk to leak into
the spinal canal and reach displaced disk material.[20] [51] The terms contained and
uncontained are unfamiliar to most radiologists: in a contained herniation, the displaced
disk material is still covered by a few intact but distended outer anular fibers, or by a
capsule formed by outer anular fibers and the adherent posterior longitudinal ligament.

Figure 11. Various types of posterior central herniations. A, Small subligamentous herniation (protrusion)
without significant disk material migration. B, Subligamentous herniation with downward migration of disk
material under the PLLC. C, Sub-ligamentous herniation with downward migration of disk material and
sequestered fragment (arrow).

The terms subligamentous and extraligamentous (or transligamentous) refer to the

position of the displaced disk material with respect to the posterior longitudinal ligament.
The anatomy of the posterior longitudinal ligament has been recently revised.[73] [89] It is a
membranous structure that has multiple components: a deep layer attached to disks and
vertebral bodies; a superficial layer attached to the dura by fibrous tissue (Hoffmann's

ligament); and lateral extensions known as the lateral membranes or peridural

membranes (Fig. 12) (Figure Not Available) . It should probably be referred to as the
posterior longitudinal ligament complex (PLLC). It actually divides the epidural space
into the perithecal space and the anterior epidural space, where displaced disk material
can be entrapped (Fig. 13) . A potential space allowing accumulation of displaced disk
material has also been detected between the outer anular fibers and the deep fibers of the
PLLC, on the posterior central aspect of the disk.[63] Posterior midline herniations seldom
rupture the PLLC and are generally subligamentous. The lateral membranes are less
resistant and transligamentous herniations are usually the result of posterior off-center
herniations or posterolateral herniations.
Figure 12. (Figure Not Available) The PLLC is portrayed here in relation to various types of
subligamentous disk displacement. At the disk level, posteriorly displaced disk material frequently
occupies the midline. Below and above the disk, an anterior epidural space (AES) exists between the PLLC
and the posterior aspect of the vertebral bodies. In this space, disk fragment motion across the midline is
curtailed by a sagittal midline septum (dashed line). A delicate, translucent membrane (shown only on left
side of drawing) is stretched between the free edge of the deep layer of the posterior longitudinal ligament
and the lateral spinal canal. (From Schellinger D, Manz HJ, Vidic B, et al: Disk fragment migration.
Radiology 175:831-836, 1990; with permission.)

Figure 13. Relationship of typical posterior disk herniations with the PLLC. A, Midline sagittal section:
unless very large, a posterior midline herniation usually remains entrapped underneath the deep layer of the
PLL C and sometimes a few intact outer anulus fibers joining with the PLL C to form a capsule. The deep
layer of the PLL C (arrow) also attaches to the posterior aspect of the vertebral body so that no potential
space is present underneath. B, Sagittal para-central section: the PLL C extends laterally at the disk level
(arrowhead) but, above and below the disk, an anterior epidural space (as), where disk fragments are
frequently entrapped, is present between the lateral (peridural) membranes and the posterior aspect of the
vertebral bodies.

Volume of Herniated Material

Quantifying the herniated disk material by measuring in millimeters its greatest diameter,
or by evaluating its cross-sectional area in square millimeters, is rarely done. The
resulting figures could be misleading without relating this measurement to the size of the
spinal canal and the exact location of the lesion.[88] A purely qualitative and subjective
statement that a mild, moderate, or severe herniation is present, however, does not give
the person reading the imaging report any indication as to the potential of the lesion to
cause significant compression of the dural sac or individual exiting nerve roots. A
reasonably precise scheme has been proposed, in 1995, by the Nomenclature Committee
of the North American Spine Society.[20] Measurements are taken from an axial CT or MR
imaging section at the site of most severe compromise: canal compromise of less than
25% at that section is qualified as mild, 25% to 75% is moderate, 76% to 90% is
moderately severe, and greater than 90% is severe. It is understood that such
characterizations describe only the cross-sectional area at one level and do not account
for the total volume of displaced material, displacement of neural tissue, or clinical
significance. The usefulness of having four categories is questionable and can likely
generate poor interobserver or intraobserver agreement, especially in situations where the
central spinal canal is relatively narrow. Bonneville's scheme[9] [10] [11] should generate
greater reliability (Fig. 14) (Figure Not Available) . Separation of the cross-sectional area
in three thirds can be applied to both the central spinal canal and the foramina. It can be
agreed, by way of convention, that the terms mild, moderate, and severe lumen
compromise by a disk herniation designate extension of the displaced disk material in the
anterior, middle, or posterior third of the central canal or foramen, depending on the
specified location of the herniation.
Figure 14. (Figure Not Available) The size of the herniation in the horizontal plane is assessed and
designated by the numbers 1, 2, or 3, by establishing its extension in the anterior, middle, or posterior third
of the spinal canal. (From Bonneville JF: Plaidoyer pour une classification par l'image des hernies
discales lombaires: la carte-image. Rev Imag Med 2:557-560, 1990; with permission.)

Location of Herniated Material

Bonneville[9] [10] [11] has also proposed an interesting and simple alpha-numerical system to
classify, according to their location, the position of disk fragments that have migrated in
the horizontal or sagittal plane (Figs. 15 (Figure Not Available) and 16) (Figure Not
Available) . Using more precise anatomic boundaries, unfortunately more familiar to
surgeons than radiologists, Wiltse et al[88] have proposed another system, which has been
supported by the North American Spine Society.[20] [21] Anatomic zones and levels are
defined using the following anatomic landmarks: medial edge of the articular facets;
medial, lateral, upper, and lower border of the pedicles; and coronal plane at the disk
center. On the horizontal plane (Fig. 17) (Figure Not Available) , these landmarks
determine the bounderies of the central zone; the subarticular zone; the foraminal zone;
the extraforaminal zone; and the anterior zone (anterior to the coronal plane at the center
of the disk). In the sagittal plane, they determine the boundaries of the diskal level, the
infrapedicular level, the pedicular level, and the suprapedicular level (Figs. 18 (Figure

Not Available) and 19) (Figure Not Available) . Radiologists interpreting axial CT or MR
images may find it difficult to use the medial edge of the facets as the landmark that
separates the central zone from the subarticular zone because the superior articular facets
are generally not included in axial sections at the disk level. The alternative is to use the
expression posterolateral to designate collectively all posterior herniations that are not
midline but do not extend into a foramen, as was proposed by Bonneville.[9] [10] [11]
Figure 15. (Figure Not Available) In the horizontal plane, herniations are labeled midline (a), posterolateral
(b), foraminal (c), and extra-foraminal (d). (From Bonneville JF: Plaidoyer pour une classification par
l'image des hernies discales lombaires: la carte-image. Rev Imag Med 2:557-560, 1990; with permission.)

Figure 16. (Figure Not Available) In the craniocaudal direction, disk migration is labeled +1, +2, +3, or -1,
-2, -3, by referring to the height of a vertebral body, divided in thirds. (From Bonneville JF: Plaidoyer pour
une classification par l'image des hernies discales lombaires: la carte-image. Rev Imag Med 2:557-560,
1990; with permission.)

Figure 17. (Figure Not Available) The anatomic zones identified on axial images. The anterior zone (not
shown) is delineated from the extraforaminal zone by an imaginary coronal line in the center of the
vertebral body. (From Wiltse LL, Berger PE, McCulloch JA: A system for reporting the size and location of
lesions in the spine. Spine 22:1534-1537, 1997; with permission.)

Figure 18. (Figure Not Available) The anatomical levels identified on craniocaudal images. (From Wiltse
LL, Berger PE, McCulloch AJ: A system for reporting the size and location of lesions in the spine. Spine
22:1534-1537, 1997; with permission.)

Figure 19. (Figure Not Available) Coronal view of the main zones and levels. (From Wiltse LL, Berger PE,
McCulloch JA: A system for reporting the size and location of lesions in the spine. Spine 22:1534-1537,
1997; with permission.)

Composition of Herniated Material

Displaced disk material may consist of glycosaminoglycans, type 1 or 2 collagen, end
plate cartilage, and bone fragments avulsed from the ring epiphysis. A reactive
inflammatory reaction usually results in edematous tissue followed by granulation tissue,
which may undergo calcification (Fig. 20) . Necrotic and partially resorbed displaced disk
material sometimes produces a large fluid-filled pouch, distinguishable from the common
high-intensity zone, because of its size (Fig. 21) , or a gas-filled cavity generally in
continuity with gas in the intervertebral space (Fig. 22) .[42] These characteristics may be
meaningful if intradiskal injection therapy is considered. In imaging reports, herniations
exhibiting calcium deposits, and those exhibiting replacement of disk material by gas or a
relatively large fluid collection, can be qualified as chronic herniations.

Figure 20. A, CT scan demonstration of a small posterior central L4-L5 calcified subligamentous
herniation. The resistant deep layer of the PLLC restrains displacement of the disk material in the posterior
central direction and does not allow a detectable distortion of the disk contour. In this particular case, the
presence of the calcification is actually the only evidence that a posterior midline anular tear and a small
subligamentous herniation are present. B, Posterior right central and sub-articular L5-S1 calcified disk
herniation in same patient. Posterolateral herniations are generally more conspicuous than posterior midline
herniations because the deep layer of the PLLC gets thinner away from the midline.

Figure 21. Posterior central midline L4-L5 herniation in a 52-year-old man demonstrated on a T2-weighted
midline MR sagittal section. There is intervertebral space narrowing with loss of normal central disk signal

intensity, while the herniated disk material demonstrates high signal intensity consistent with a
predominantly fluid consistency.

Figure 22. CT scan demonstration, in a 51-year-old woman, of a left posterolateral L5-S1 disk hernation
consisting essentially in a gas-filled pouch (white arrow). Gas is also present in the central portion of the
intervertebral disk space (black arrow).

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING AND CHARACTERIZATION OF A HERNIATED LUMBAR DISK

Assessing the validity of the currently used imaging procedures to diagnose a herniated
lumbar disk is not an easy endeavor. The validity of a measurement is the extent to which
it corresponds to the true biologic value or some accepted gold standard.[40] With the
exception of postmortem studies, evaluation of the pathoanatomy by the surgeon in the
operating room has always been considered the gold standard but this does not constitute
an ideal situation. Inspection of the disk through a small laminectomy incision to
determine, for instance, if nuclear fragments lie within or outside the anular fibers may
not be very reliable. Also, unbiased intraoperative determination of a normal,
degenerated, or herniated disk in a patient with sciatica may also be difficult.[86] Because
the validity of diskography has been previously established by postmortem studies and
surgical correlations,[48] it is sometimes used as a gold standard in situations where no
surgery has been performed.
Conventional Radiographs

Lumbar disk herniations can exceptionally be diagnosed directly on good quality lateral
projections because the x-ray attenuation is slightly greater in displaced disk material
than in epidural fat. Occasionally, a calcified rim outlines the displaced disk fragment

(Fig. 23) . In most situations, however, narrowing of an intervertebral disk space in the
absence of other evidence of chronic diskopathy is the only detectable sign suggesting the
presence of a disk herniation. To my knowledge, the sensitivity and specificity of this
sign has never been assessed. The accepted rule of thumb is that the height of a given
lumbar intervertebral disk space should always be slightly greater than the height of the
above located interspace. This rule does not apply to the transition disk immediately
above the sacrum (usually L5-S1). The specificity of this sign is probably quite high but a
few false-positives are seen, especially at the L4-L5 level, because of minor congenital
hypoplasia. The presence of posterior or foraminal vertebral body osteophytes, associated
or not with disk space narrowing, is a definite sign of a chronic disk herniation.

Figure 23. A, Chronic left L3-L4 extraforaminal disk hernation in a 54-year-old man, suspected on an AP
radiograph demonstrating a calcified shell on the left side of the intervertebral disk space (white arrow). B,
Axial CT scan section confirming the diagnosis of a chronic extraforaminal L3-L4 herniation.

Myelography

Myelography is essentially an exploration of the subarachnoid space. Disk herniations are

demonstrated only indirectly, because they can cause thecal sac deformity and individual
nerve root sleeve filling defects (Fig. 24) . Of all the special imaging procedures,

myelography is the only one that allows upright projections with full weight bearing. It is
not unusual to demonstrate in this way small posterior central or posterolateral
herniations that are undetectable on CT sections. Interestingly, the overall sensitivity of
myelography to detect disk herniations has been found to be higher than that of CT,
whereas its specificity has been found to be lower.[74] In comparison with standard CT
examination, which usually includes only the three or four lower lumbar disks,
myelography easily allows coverage of the entire lumbar area and assessment of the
intrathecal structures (cauda equina and conus medullaris). Far lateral foraminal
herniations, extraforaminal herniations, and anterior herniations, however, are not
detected. The sensitivity for detection of posterior central L5-S1 herniations is also
relatively poor because of the greater distance between the thecal sac and the posterior
aspect of this particular disk.

Figure 24. L5-S1 disk herniation in a 25-year-old man, detected by indirect signs using lumbosacral
myelography. A, Upright oblique projections showing a filling defect of the left S1 root sleeve (white
arrow), suggesting significant nerve root compression by a left posterolateral disk hernation. The right S1
root sleeve fills normally with contrast (black arrow). B, Subtle compression of the anterior wall of the
dural sac by displaced disk material (small arrows), demonstrated on upright lateral projection. This sign is
usually absent in the presence of a large amount of fat and venous structures in the anterior epidural
compartment.

CT

The sensitivity of CT to diagnose a herniation of the nucleus pulposus at the L5-S1

interspace is greater than that of myelography if images in the exact plane of the disk can
be obtained.[23] [39] Otherwise, the superiority of plain CT over myelography to demonstrate
disk herniations has not been established, but CT has the distinct advantage of being

noninvasive and provides direct anatomic information.[23] Large herniations are easily
detected but, as explained previously, the distinction between protrusions and extrusions
is often difficult without sagittal reconstructions. CT essentially allows an assessment of
the contour of the disk. The diagnosis of very small herniations, in the absence of direct
or indirect evidence of a radial tear, is hazardous and associated with a high percentage of
false-positives and false-negatives.[52] The diagnosis of moderate and large size herniations
in different directions is usually possible but anterior herniations are rarely diagnosed, not
because they are not detectable but because observers pay little attention to the anterior
contour of the disk (Fig. 25) . Because the PLLC cannot usually be identified, the
distinction of subligamentous from transligamentous herniation can only be suggested, in
most cases, by the size of the herniated material. A definite diagnosis of sequestration is
rarely possible. Calcifications within the displaced material are readily seen but may be
difficult at times to differentiate from an accompanying osteophyte or an avulsed bone
fragment from the vertebral body ring epiphysis (Fig. 26) . The presence of gas in the
herniated material is easily detected.

Figure 25. Anterior L4-L5 herniation demonstrated by CT scan in a 51-year-old woman with chronic low
back pain. Although sometimes quite conspicuous, such herniations are rarely reported because observers
pay little attention to the anterior contour of the disk.

Figure 26. CT scan demonstration of a posterior right central L4-L5 disk herniation in a 38-year-old
woman, with avulsion of a bone fragment from the ring epiphysis and adjacent part of the superior L5 end
plate. Reactive osteosclerosis is seen around the vertebral body defect (arrows), suggesting a chronic
lesion.

CT Myelography

This association combines the advantages of both imaging modalities. The fact that its
accuracy has been reported as being less,[22] [32] higher,[1] [6] or equivalent[82] to MR imaging is
a reflection of the differences in technologic advancement and pathologic nomenclature
that hamper valid comparisons between different studies.
MR Imaging

Most reported studies establish MR imaging as the first choice modality to diagnose a
herniated lumbar disk.[5] [22] [32] [46] The associated intravenous injection of a paramagnetic
agent has been found useful to demonstrate some anatomic features of disk disease in
patients with no previous lumbar disk surgery.[56] [68] [90] MR imaging provides a better
assessment of disk morphology than CT or CT myelography because sagittal sections are
routinely obtained. Assessment of foraminal involvement by displaced disk material is
more accurate (Fig. 27) and anterior disk herniations can be detected more easily than
with CT or CT myelography. If one is looking specifically for herniated lumbar disks
associated with nerve root compression, however, it has been demonstrated that CT is
equally accurate.[82] Alterations of the central or peripheral disk signal intensity on T2weighted images are seen in most disks afflicted with an anular tear[48] and alert the
observer to scrutinize the disk contour in search for local modifications indicative of a
herniation. Because the signal of the displaced disk material is usually very similar to that
of the outer anulus, PLLC, and vertebral body cortical bone, small herniations are
generally more conspicuous on axial CT sections than on corresponding axial MR
imaging sections. Gas and calcium deposits within the displaced fragment cannot usually

be detected but associated vertebral body bone marrow changes are typically seen and are
helpful in differentiating acute from chronic processes.[57] The occasional presence of a
high-intensity zone in the herniated material, with an occasionally enhancing border after
contrast injection, is probably caused by a mixture of displaced nuclear material, acute
and subacute inflammatory tissue, and neovascularized reactive tissue.[4] [48] [72]
Contradictory reports have been published regarding the accuracy of MR imaging to
differentiate subligamentous from transligamentous herniations.[26] [38] [73] [76] Understanding
the anatomy of the PLLC is helpful to make the distinction (Fig. 28) (Figure Not
Available) . Masaryk et al[46] have suggested that MR imaging is accurate to distinguish
sequestered disks from other forms of lumbar disk herniations, but most observers find
this distinction difficult to establish.[42]

Figure 27. A, Left L4-L5 foraminal herniation well seen on an intermediate-weighted left parasagittal MR
section (arrow), in a 47-year-old man. B, The lesion is much less obvious on intermediate-weighted (left)
and T2-weighted (right) axial sections, and was in fact more conspicuous on the corresponding CT scan
section.

Figure 28. (Figure Not Available) A, Subligamentous disk herniation. Left, T1-weighted image
demonstrating displaced disk material with a smooth outline, imposed by the demarcation of the anterior
epidural space (AES) by the lateral membrane of the PLLC. Right, Correlative drawing. B,
Transligamentous disk herniation. Left, T1-weighted image of a large disk herniation (cervical in this case)
which has ruptured through the posterior confines of the AES. Penetration of the right lateral membrane
can be observed (arrow) and the disk fragment contour is serrated. Right, Correlative drawing. (From
Schellinger D, Manz HJ, Vidic B, et al: Disk fragment migration. Radiology 175:831-836, 1990; with
permission.)

Diskography and CT Diskography

During 30 years (1950 to 1980) when myelography was the only available imaging
technique to demonstrate lumbar disk herniations, diskography was an invasive but
efficient way to demonstrate posterior central L5-S1 herniations and other large
herniations (other than posterior central and paramedial) that could not be detected by
myelography.[50] These herniations are now usually well demonstrated by CT and MR
imaging. Comparing the accuracy of five imaging modalities (excluding MR imaging) for
the diagnosis of lumbar disk herniation, Jackson et al[31] found that CT diskography (Fig.
29) was the most accurate test (87%) compared with 77% for CT myelography, 74% for
CT, 70% for myelography, 64% for pain reproduction during diskography, and 58% for
diskography without CT. Disk injection reproduced the patient's clinical pain pattern in
only 36% of herniated disks. This clinical test, isolated from the images, had high
specificity (89%), but low sensitivity (43%) for the diagnosis of disk herniation. The
reported low sensitivity of diskography images (unassociated with CT) to diagnose disk
herniation is to be expected, the purpose of the intradiskal injection being primarily the
demonstration of an anular tear: the contrast leaking through the tear only occasionally
delineates an extruded fragment. When a disk herniation has been diagnosed by other
imaging modalities, diskography allows to determine if the herniation is contained or
noncontained (Figs. 30 and 31) ; this information may have clinical relevance.[62] It also
allows to establish if the displaced disk material is communicating or not with the parent
disk, and establishes the likelihood that it is sequestered or not. There always remains a
possibility that the contrast, injected under pressure, may reach a disk fragment that is
nevertheless sequestered by leaking through the associated anular tear. CT diskography
also allows assessment, in most cases, of the integrity of the PLLC.[89] The superior
sensitivity of diskography over MR imaging to demonstrate anular tears has been well
established.[27] [44] [48] [64] [77] [91] [94] The presence of a radial tear and the inflammatory reaction it
creates may be symptomatic despite the absence of true disk herniation.[29] [48] [49] [69]

Figure 29. L4-L5 CT diskogram demonstrating a large left posterolateral radial anular tear associated with

a left foraminal and extraforaminal herniaton (same patient as in Figure 28) (Figure Not Available) .

Figure 30. Contained posterior L4-L5 and L5-S1 disk herniations in a 57-year-old man, demonstrated by
diskography. The L3-L4 disk is normal.

Figure 31. Noncontained L4-L5 disk herniation in a 23-year-old woman. Reflux of injected contrast is seen
in the anterior epidural space above and below the disk space. The L5-S1 disk also demonstrates
incomplete anterior and posterior radial anular tears.

SUMMARY

The absence of universal nomenclature standardization with respect to the definition of a

disk herniation and its different categories, especially regarding type and location, is still
a major problem that will only be overcome when major national or international
scientific societies join efforts to support a particular scheme. Meanwhile, it is important
to realize that the two models that are currently most used are based on a different
perspective. Trying to straddle the two by opposing, for instance, bulging disk and
herniation is doomed to failure because this exercise defies formal logic. MR imaging is
currently the most accurate noninvasive imaging modality to diagnose a disk herniation
and to determine its exact location. The determination of some pathoanatomic
characteristics of herniated disks (type and composition) may require the use of CT,
diskography, or CT diskography.
References

1. Albeck

MJ, Hilden J, Kjaer L, et al: A controlled comparison of myelography, computed tomography,

and magnetic resonance imaging in clinically suspected lumbar disc herniation. Spine 20:443-448, 1995
Abstract
2. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons: Glossary on Spinal Terminology. Chicago, American
Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 1981
3. Andersson

GB, Weinstein JN: Disc herniation [editorial]. Spine 21:1S, 1996 Citation

4. Aprill

C, Bogduk N: High-intensity zone: A diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance
imaging. Br J Radiol 65:361-369, 1992 Abstract
5. Birney TJ, White JJ Jr, Berens D, et al: Comparison of MRI and discography in the diagnosis of lumbar
degenerative disc disease. J Spinal Disord 5:417-423, 1992 Abstract
6. Bischoff RJ, Rodriguez RP, Gupta K, et al: A comparison of computed tomography-myelography,
magnetic resonance imaging, and myelography in the diagnosis of herniated nucleus pulposus and spinal
stenosis. J Spinal Disord 6:289-295, 1993 Abstract
7. Bogduk

N: The innervation of the lumbar spine. Spine 8:286-293, 1983 Abstract

8. Bogduk

N, Tynan W, Wilson AS: The nerve supply to the human lumbar intervertebral discs. J Anat
132:39-56, 1981 Abstract
9. Bonneville

JF: La carte-image des hernies discales lombaires. Rachis 2:255-257, 1990

10. Bonneville

JF: La topografia simbolica delle ernie discali lombari. Riv Neuroradiol 5:427-431, 1992

11. Bonneville JF: Plaidoyer pour une classification par l'image des hernies discales lombaires: La carteimage. Rev Imag Med 2:557-560, 1990
12. Brant-Zawadzki

M, Jensen M: Spinal nomenclature. Spine 20:388-390, 1995 Abstract

13. Brant-Zawadzki MN, Jensen MC, Obuchowski N, et al: Interobserver and intraobserver variability in
interpretation of lumbar disc abnormalities: A comparison of two nomenclatures. Spine 20:1257-1263,
1995 Abstract
14. Breton

G: Is that a bulging disk, a small herniation or a moderate protrusion? [editorial]. Can Assoc
Radiol J 42:318, 1991 Citation
15. Czervionke
16. Deyo

LF: Lumbar intervertebral disc disease. Neuroimaging Clin North Am 3:465-485, 1993

RA: Nonsurgical care of low back pain. Neurosurg Clin North Am 2:851-862, 1991

17. Deyo

RA, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ: Herniated lumbar intervertebral disk. Ann Intern Med 112:598-603,
1990 Abstract

18. Dorland's

Illustrated Medical Dictionary, ed 28. Philadelphia. WB Saunders, 1994

19. Fardon D, Pinkerton S, Balderston R, et al: Terms used for diagnosis by English speaking spine
surgeons. Spine 18:274-277, 1993 Citation
20. Fardon

DF, Herzog RJ, Mink JH, et al: Nomenclature of Lumbar Disc Disorders. Contemporary
Concepts in Spine Care. Rosemont, IL, North American Spine Society, 1995
21. Fardon DF, Herzog RJ, Mink JH, et al: Nomenclature of lumbar disc disorders. In Garfin S, Vaccaro A
(eds): Orthopedic Knowledge Update: Spine. Rosemont, IL, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons,
1997, pp A3-A14
22. Forristall RM, Marsh HO, Pay NT: Magnetic resonance imaging and contrast CT of the lumbar spine:
Comparison of diagnostic methods and correlation with surgical findings. Spine 13:1049-1054, 1988
Abstract
23. Fries JW, Abodeely DA, Vijungco JG, et al: Computed tomography of herniated and extruded nucleus
pulposus. J Comput Assist Tomogr 6:874-887, 1982 Abstract
24. Frymoyer

JW, Newberg A, Pope MH, et al: Spine radiographs in patients with low-back pain: An
epidemiological study in men. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:1048-1055, 1984 Abstract
25. Gospodarowicz M, Benedet L, Hutter RV, et al: History and international developments in cancer
staging. Cancer Prev Control 2:262-268, 1998 Abstract
26. Grenier N, Greselle JF, Vital JM, et al: Normal and disrupted lumbar longitudinal ligaments: Correlative
MR and anatomic study. Radiology 171:197-205, 1989 Abstract
27. Gunzburg R, Parkinson R, Moore R, et al: A cadaveric study comparing discography, magnetic
resonance imaging, histology, and mechanical behavior of the human lumbar disc. Spine 17:417-426, 1992
Abstract
28. Haughton

VM, Eldevik OP, Magnaes B, et al: A prospective comparison of computed tomography and
myelography in the diagnosis of herniated lumbar disks. Radiology 142:103-110, 1982 Abstract

29. Haughton VM, Lim TH, An H: Intervertebral disk appearance correlated with stiffness of lumbar spinal
motion segments. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 20:1161-1165, 1999 Abstract
30. Herzog

RJ: The radiologic assessment for a lumbar disc herniation. Spine 21:19S-38S, 1996 Abstract

31. Jackson RP, Becker GJ, Jacobs RR, et al: The neuroradiographic diagnosis of lumbar herniated nucleus
pulposus: I. A comparison of computed tomography (CT), myelography, CT-myelography, discography,
and CT-discography. Spine 14:1356-1361, 1989 Abstract
32. Jackson RP, Cain JE Jr, Jacobs RR, et al: The neuroradiographic diagnosis of lumbar herniated nucleus
pulposus: II. A comparison of computed tomography (CT), myelography, CT-myelography, and magnetic
resonance imaging. Spine 14:1362-1367, 1989 Abstract
33. Jarvik JG, Haynor DR, Koepsell TD, et al: Interreader reliability for a new classification of lumbar disk
disease. Acad Radiol 3:537-544, 1996 Abstract
34. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar
spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med 331:69-73, 1994 Abstract
35. Kent

DL, Haynor DR, Larson EB, et al: Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis in adults: A meta-analysis
of the accuracy of CT, MR, and myelography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158:1135-1144, 1992 Abstract
36. Kieffer SA, Sherry RG, Wellenstein DE, et al: Bulging lumbar intervertebral disk: Myelographic
differentiation from herniated disk with nerve root compression. AJR Am J Roentgenol 138:709-716, 1982
Abstract
37. Kieffer SA, Stadlan EM, Mohandas A, et al: Discographic-anatomical correlation of developmental
changes with age in the intervertebral disc. Acta Radiol 9:733-739, 1969
38. Kim

KY, Kim YT, Lee CS, et al: MRI classification of lumbar herniated intervertebral disc. Orthopedics
15:493-497, 1992 Abstract

39. Kornberg

M, Rechtine GR, Dupuy TE: Computed tomography in the diagnosis of a herniated disk at the
L5-S1 level. Spine 9:433-436, 1984 Abstract
40. Kramer

MS: Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1988

41. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics 33:159-174, 1977 Abstract
42. Laredo JD, Bossard P, Vuillemin-Bodaghi: Formes anatomo-radiologiques des hernies discales. In
Morvan G, Deburge A, Bard H, et al (eds): Le Rachis Lombaire Degeneratif. Montpellier, Sauramps
Medical, 1998, pp 37-49
43. Lee

SH, Coleman PE, Hahn FJ: Magnetic resonance imaging of degenerative disk disease of the spine.
Radiol Clin North Am 26:949-964, 1988 Abstract
44. Linson MA, Crowe CH: Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and lumbar discography in the
diagnosis of disc degeneration. Clin Orthop, 160-163, 1990

45. Marchand

F, Ahmed AM: Investigation of the laminate structure of lumbar disc anulus fibrosus. Spine
15:402-410, 1990 Abstract
46. Masaryk TJ, Ross JS, Modic MT, et al: High-resolution MR imaging of sequestered lumbar
intervertebral disks. AJR Am J Roentgenol 150:1155-1162, 1988 Abstract
47. Milette PC: The proper terminology for reporting lumbar intervertebral disk disorders. AJNR Am J
Neuroradiol 18:1859-1866, 1997 Citation
48. Milette PC, Fontaine S, Lepanto L, et al: Differentiating lumbar disc protrusions, disk bulges, and discs
with normal contour but abnormal signal intensity: Magnetic resonance imaging with discographic
correlations. Spine 24:44-53, 1999 Abstract
49. Milette

PC, Fontaine S, Lepanto L, et al: Radiating pain to the lower extremities caused by lumbar disk
rupture without spinal nerve root involvement. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 16:1605-1613, 1995 Abstract
50. Milette

PC, Melancon D: A reappraisal of lumbar discography. Can Assoc Radiol J 33:176-182, 1982

51. Milette PC, Melancon D, Dupuis PR, et al: A simplified terminology for abnormalities of the lumbar
disk. Can Assoc Radiol J 42:319-325, 1991 Abstract
52. Milette PC, Raymond J, Fontaine S: Comparison of high-resolution computed tomography with
discography in the evaluation of lumbar disc herniations. Spine 15:525-533, 1990 Abstract
53. Mink

JH, Deutsch AL, Goldstein TB, et al: Spinal imaging and intervention: 1998. Phys Med Rehabil
Clin North Am 9:343-380, 1998
54. Mixter

WJ, Barr JS: Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J
Med 211:210-234, 1934

55. Modic MT, Masaryk TJ, Ross JS, et al: Imaging of degenerative disk disease. Radiology 168:177-186,
1988 Citation
56. Modic MT, Ross JS, Obuchowski NA, et al: Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in acute lumbar
radiculopathy: A pilot study of the natural history. Radiology 195:429-435, 1995 Abstract
57. Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, et al: Degenerative disk disease: Assessment of changes in vertebral
body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 166:193-199, 1988
58. Morvan

G, Mathieu P: Les stenoses laterales. In Morvan G, Deburge A, Bard H, et al (eds): Le Rachis

Lombaire Degeneratif. Montpellier, Sauramps Medical, 1998, pp 315-324
59. Murray RO: Skeletal trauma: Regional. In Sutton D (ed): Textbook of Radiology and Imaging, ed 3.
New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1980, pp 210-231
60. Nachemson

Citation

A: Lumbar disc herniation: Conclusions. Acta Orthop Scand 64(suppl 251):49, 1993

61. Nathan H: Osteophytes of the vertebral column: An anatomical study of their development according to
age, race, and sex, with consideration as to their etiology and significance. J Bone Joint Surg Am 44:243268, 1962
62. Nygaard

OP, Mellgren SI, Osterud B: The inflammatory properties of contained and noncontained
lumbar disc herniations. Spine 22:2584-2488, 1997 Abstract
63. Ohshima

H, Hirano N, Osada R, et al: Morphologic variation of lumbar posterior longitudinal ligament

and the modality of disc herniation. Spine 18:2408-2411, 1993 Abstract
64. Osti OL, Fraser RD: MRI and discography of annular tears and intervertebral disc degeneration. A
prospective clinical comparison. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:431-435, 1992 Abstract
65. Palmgren T, Gronblad M, Virri J, et al: Immunohistochemical demonstration of sensory and autonomic
nerve terminals in herniated lumbar disc tissue. Spine 21:1301-1306, 1996 Abstract
66. Resnick D, Niwayama G: Degenerative disease of the spine. In Resnick D (ed): Diagnosis of Bone and
Joint Disorders, ed 3. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1995, pp 1372-1462
67. Resnick

D, Niwayama G: Intravertebral disk herniations: Cartilaginous (Schmorl's) nodes. Radiology

126:57-65, 1978 Abstract
68. Ross JS, Modic MT, Masaryk TJ: Tears of the anulus fibrosus: Assessment with Gd-DTPA-enhanced
MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 154:159-162, 1990 Abstract
69. Saal

JS: The role of inflammation in lumbar pain. Spine 20:1821-1827, 1995 Abstract

70. Sachs BL, Vanharanta H, Spivey MA, et al: Dallas discogram description: A new classification of
CT/discography in low-back disorders. Spine 12:287-294, 1987 Abstract
71. Sauser

DD, Goldman AB, Kaye JJ: Discogenic vertebral sclerosis. J Can Assoc Radiol 29:44-50, 1978

Abstract
72. Schellhas

KP, Pollei SR, Gundry CR, et al: Lumbar disc high-intensity zone: Correlation of magnetic
resonance imaging and discography. Spine 21:79-86, 1996 Abstract

73. Schellinger

D, Manz HJ, Vidic B, et al: Disk fragment migration. Radiology 175:831-836, 1990

Abstract
74. Schipper J, Kardaun JW, Braakman R, et al: Lumbar disk herniation: Diagnosis with CT or
myelography. Radiology 165:227-231, 1987 Abstract
75. Schmorl G, Junghanns H: The Human Spine in Health and Disease, ed 2. New York, Grune and
Stratton, 1971
76. Silverman

CS, Lenchik L, Shimkin PM, et al: The value of MR in differentiating subligamentous from
supraligamentous lumbar disk herniations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 16:571-579, 1995 Abstract
77. Simmons

JW, Emery SF, McMillin JN, et al: Awake discography: A comparison study with magnetic

resonance imaging. Spine 16:S216-221, 1991 Abstract

78. Smyth

MJ, Wright V: Sciatica and the intervertebral disc. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40:1401-1418, 1958

79. Taveras JM: Radiologic aspects of low back pain and sciatic syndromes [editorial]. AJNR Am J
Neuroradiol 9:351-358, 1989
80. Tehranzadeh

J: Discography 2000. Radiol Clin North Am 36:463-495, 1998 Full Text

81. Thelander U, Fagerlund M, Friberg S, et al: Describing the size of lumbar disc herniations using
computed tomography: A comparison of different size index calculations and their relation to sciatica.
Spine 19:1979-1984, 1994 Abstract
82. Thornbury JR, Fryback DG, Turski PA, et al: Disk-caused nerve compression in patients with acute lowback pain: Diagnosis with MR, CT myelography, and plain CT. Radiology 186:731-738, 1993 Abstract
83. Twomey

L, Taylor J: Age changes in lumbar intervertebral discs. Acta Orthop Scand 56:496-499, 1985

Abstract
84. Twomey

LT, Taylor JR: Age changes in lumbar vertebrae and intervertebral discs. Clin Orthop 224:97-

104, 1987
85. Williams

AL: CT diagnosis of degenerative disc disease: The bulging annulus. Radiol Clin North Am
21:289-300, 1983 Abstract
86. Williams AL, Haughton VM, Meyer GA, et al: Computed tomographic appearance of the bulging
annulus. Radiology 142:403-408, 1982 Abstract
87. Williams

AL, Haughton VM, Syvertsen A: Computed tomography in the diagnosis of herniated nucleus
pulposus. Radiology 135:95-99, 1980 Abstract

88. Wiltse LL, Berger PE, McCulloch JA: A system for reporting the size and location of lesions in the
spine. Spine 22:1534-1537, 1997 Abstract
89. Wiltse LL, Fonseca AS, Amster J, et al: Relationship of the dura, Hofmann's ligaments, Batson's plexus,
and a fibrovascular membrane lying on the posterior surface of the vertebral bodies and attaching to the
deep layer of the posterior longitudinal ligament: An anatomical, radiologic, and clinical study. Spine
18:1030-1043, 1993 Abstract
90. Yamashita K, Hiroshima K, Kurata A: Gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of a
sequestered lumbar intervertebral disc and its correlation with pathologic findings. Spine 19:479-482, 1994
Abstract
91. Yu SW, Haughton VM, Sether LA, et al: Comparison of MR and diskography in detecting radial tears of
the anulus: A postmortem study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 10:1077-1081, 1989 Abstract
92. Yu

SW, Sether LA, Ho PS, et al: Tears of the anulus fibrosus: Correlation between MR and pathologic
findings in cadavers. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 9:367-370, 1988 Abstract

93. Yussen PS, Swartz JD: The acute lumbar disc herniation: Imaging diagnosis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR
14:389-398, 1993 Abstract
94. Zucherman J, Derby R, Hsu K, et al: Normal magnetic resonance imaging with abnormal discography.
Spine 13:1355-1359, 1988 Abstract

Copyright 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. - www.mdconsult.com

Bookmark URL: /das/journal/view/0/N/11535915?ja=198094&PAGE=1.html&issn=0033-8389&source=MI