Skip to main content

The association between occupational loading and spine degeneration on imaging – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

There are inconsistencies in findings regarding the relationship of occupational loading with spinal degeneration or structural damage. Thus, a systematic review was conducted to determine the current state of knowledge on the association of occupational loading and spine degeneration on imaging.

Methods

We performed electronic searches on MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE. We included cross-sectional, case control and cohort studies evaluating occupational loading as the exposure and lumbar spine structural findings on imaging as the outcomes. When possible, results were pooled.

Results

Seventeen studies were included in the review. Ten studies evaluated the association of occupational loading with disc degeneration (signal intensity), four of which were pooled into a meta-analysis. Of the 10 studies, only two did not identify a relationship between occupation loading and disc degeneration. A meta-analysis including four of the studies demonstrated an association between higher loading and degeneration for all spinal levels, with odds ratios between 1.6 and 3.3. Seven studies evaluated disc height narrowing and seven evaluate disc bulge, with six and five identifying an association of loading and with imaging findings respectively. Three studies evaluated modic changes and one identified and association with occupational load.

Conclusions

There was moderate evidence suggesting a modest association between occupational loading and disc degeneration (signal intensity), and low-quality evidence of an association between occupational loading and disc narrowing and bulging.

Peer Review reports

Background

The cumulative or repetitive injury model was once a dominant paradigm of spine degeneration [1]. Thus, heavy occupational physical loading activities have long been suspected of increasing spine degeneration. However, inconsistencies between study findings, with some supporting this association [2, 3] and other not [4, 5], have led to controversy and uncertainty about the relationship between physical loading and lumbar spine degeneration. Furthermore, recent studies suggest that the structures of the spinal column, including the intervertebral discs, adapt and may even benefit from greater routine physical loading [1].

Controversy still exists between the relationship of occupational load and low back pain [6]. However, given the subjective nature of pain evaluation and the high prevalence of back pain in general, studies depicting the association between pain and occupation load always have large room for bias. The use of objective measures of spine degeneration to evaluate the impact of occupational load on the spine can provide a solution to better understanding this relationship. The evaluation of spine degeneration on imaging is both a reliable and objective measure to evaluate the effects of repetitive load on the spine, which in turn may mediate the occurrence of back pain in this population. Although spine degeneration on imaging is not synonym of back pain, spine degeneration on imaging have been found to be associated with an increased risk for low back pain [7] and increased risk of recurrent episodes [8].

Given the inconsistencies in the literature about the association of occupational load and spine degeneration, the objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the association of occupational loading and spine degeneration observed on imaging. Occupational loading was described as loading conditions occurring during occupational activities, such as lifting and manual handling or comparisons between specific occupations.

Methods

A protocol for the study was developed a priori following the PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook.

Data sources and searches

A computerised electronic search was performed to identify relevant articles. The search was conducted on MEDLINE (1946 to May 2019), CINAHL (1982 to May 2019) and EMBASE (1988 to May 2019). Key words included in our search were related to 3 domains: imaging (i.e. x-ray, radiograph), imaging findings (i.e. disc degeneration, disc height) and load (i.e. manual handling, occupational load). Subject subheadings and word truncations specific for each database were used. There was no language restriction. See Additional file 1 for search strategy section.

Two reviewers screened search results (titles and abstracts) for potentially eligible studies. A third independent reviewer resolved any disagreement for inclusion of trials. Authors were contacted if more information about the trial was needed to allow inclusion of the study.

We also performed a search on the reference lists of the included studies and a search on ISI Web of Sicence (May 2019) for papers that cited the included studies.

Study selection

Cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies evaluating occupational loading as the exposure were eligible for inclusion. All studies that evaluated professional athletes and whole body vibration as a form of exposure were included on a separate review. In addition, the study had to evaluate the relationship of loading with lumbar spine structural findings evaluated on diagnostic imaging. Studies that used back pain as an outcome measure were not included. Studies that included patients with pre-existing conditions, such as disc herniation, were excluded from the review as they are more likely to have positive findings on imaging and may provide biased estimates for the relationship under investigation. Two reviewers screened the full text of potentially eligible studies and decided on inclusion. A third independent reviewer resolved any disagreement for inclusion of studies. The reviewers followed a research protocol developed prior to the beginning of the review, which included a checklist of inclusion criteria.

Data extraction and quality assessment

The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment scale [9, 10] for case-control and cohort studies. The maximum value of the scale is 9 (high quality) and the minimum value is 0 (lowest quality). The quality was assessed by independent raters and disagreements were resolved by a third rater. Methodological quality was not an inclusion criterion but was taken into consideration when making conclusions.

Two independent reviewers (LM and research assistants) extracted data from the included studies using a standardized data extraction form. Important characteristics of each study were extracted, such as type of loading, study design, type of imaging, patient population, affiliation of the authors, funding source, and study conclusions. We also extracted the type of outcomes used, and for continuous outcome measurements we extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample size, and for dichotomous and ordinal outcomes, sample size and number of events per group.

Data synthesis and analysis

Results were pooled when trials were considered sufficiently homogenous with respect to participant characteristics, exposure and outcomes. I2 was calculated using RevMan 5 to assess statistical heterogeneity. A random effects model was used to pool all available outcomes. I2 was calculated to evaluate statistical heterogeneity of pooled outcomes [11]. When adequate data were presented from the original study, mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes were calculated. When such information was not available, the information presented in each study was used for interpretation of the results.

The GRADE approach for grading the level of the evidence available was used to summarize the conclusion of this review [11]. Depending on the number and quality of the studies included in the review, the evidence was classified into high, moderate, low or very low quality evidence.

Results

Study selection

The electronic database search resulted in a total of 5363 articles after removing duplicates. Of these, 137 were selected as potentially eligible based on their title and abstract.

After full title screening a total of 16 studies were included in the review. An additional ISI web of science search showed 11 more potentially eligible studies, from which 1 was included in the review. Therefore, the final number of included studies was 17. (Flowchart_ Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Flow chart of occupational load systematic review inclusion

125 Exclusion for graph only * 27 No outcome of interest [6, 10, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 31,32,33,34,35], 11 no non-exposed group [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46], 23 not evaluating occupational load [1, 47,48,49,50,51,52,53, 54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62], 19 not a cohort study [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81], 11 included patients on already established conditions, [37, 82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91] 5 no imaging on all groups [92,93,94,95,96], 4 cervical spine [97,98,99,100], 1 in vitro, [101] 1 child study [34], 1 cant get full text [102], 3 secondary analysis or study with same population of an already included study, [103,104,105] 10 studies evaluated whole body vibration alone, [106,107,108,109,110,111,112,114,115] 9 studies evaluated athletes [116,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,124].

Study characteristics

There were 16 original studies evaluating occupational load [2,3,4,5, 125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136] including 1 follow-up study [137]. Ten studies evaluated specific job requirements such as occupational lifting or job load summary score [2, 4, 127,128,129,130, 132, 133, 135,136,137] and six compared different types of occupation with different occupational requirements [3, 5, 125, 126, 131, 134]. See Table 1 for study characteristics.

Table 1 Study characteristics

Methodological quality

The methodological quality demonstrated an overall moderate level of quality, with a minimum of 3, a maximum score of 8, and a median and interquartile range of 5 and 3. The items of the methodological quality scale that were not present in most studies were control of potentially confounding factors and reporting of the response rate of each group.

Three studies included the same population from the Finnish Twin Spine study, but answered different questions related to different outcomes. These studies represent the strongest form of evidence given that controls are identical twins, minimizing possible confounding and familial aggregation [127, 128].

Outcomes

Ten studies evaluated the impact of loading on disc degeneration, generally assessed through disc signal intensity, representing disc desiccation [2,3,4,5, 126,127,128,129, 133, 134, 137]. The primary method of evaluating disc degeneration is through observing disc signal intensity on imaging. Disc degeneration is often associated with a whiter less translucent appearance of the disc [126]. Of these 10 studies only two did not find significant differences between groups [3, 129] and one study found more degeneration in those with less load [127]. In one study we were not able to assess whether statistical differences existed [134]. Seven studies identified some significant difference between loading groups with more load being associated with more degeneration, although we were not able to pool the results given the differences in types of loads and outcomes measured [2, 4, 5, 126,127,128, 133]. For all comparisons odds ratios when calculated varied between 1.89 to 3.7. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 2. One additional study looked at an overall measure of degeneration that included a combination of factors, and found that occupational loading was associated with the overall degeneration measurements [130].

Table 2 Exposure and results of each study included in the review that evaluated occupational load

We were able to pool the results of 4 studies evaluating the association of disc degeneration with different types of occupational load for different spine levels [2,3,4, 133]. The results demonstrated that for all levels evaluated, including L1-S1, there was a statistically significant difference between loading groups with more degeneration associated with greater loading. Forest plost are presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure2

Disc degeneration (signal intensity) forest plots for each spinal level, L1-S1

Seven studies evaluated disc height [2, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, 137]. Disc height can be measured on imaging using quantitative or qualitative measures and is a surrogate measure of disc degeneration. Of the seven studies evaluating disc height only one did not find a significant difference in disc height between groups [2]. The other six studies identified some type of influence of occupation load with disc height, with greater load being associated with narrower discs. Four studies identified an overall relationship of loading with disc height, without focusing on specific levels [125, 127, 128, 137] and the other studies found different levels to be significantly different [131, 133].

Seven studies evaluated a difference in the prevalence of disc bulge or herniation [3, 126, 128, 130, 133, 136, 137]. Disc bulges or herniations were primarily evaluated through visual observation of images. Of the seven studies, five identified a significant difference between loading groups [3, 128, 133, 136, 137]. Three studies evaluated the prevalence of all lumbar levels together [128, 136, 137] while two studies found difference for different levels, [3, 133] which varied between the studies. When calculated, odd ratios varied between 2.0 to 3.1.

Three studies evaluated Modic changes [126, 129, 135]. Modic changes represent lesions of the vertebral endplate that is adjacent to the bone marrow. Modic changes are often assessed qualitatively [135]. In this review only one study [135] identified a relationship of modic changes with occupation load. One study evaluated the prevalence of Schmorl’s nodes [132]. These are small protrusion of the disc into the vertebral body. The one study included in this review did not identify a relationship of nodes with occupational loading groups. Two studies evaluated the presence of other endplate abnormalities, [125, 137] with only one study identifying a difference between loading groups [137]. Finally, three studies evaluated the presence of osteophytes [125, 132, 137] with two studies identifying greater prevalence of osteophytes in those with greater load [125, 137].

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that there is moderate grade evidence of an association between occupational loading and disc degeneration in terms of signal intensity. There is low quality grade evidence between loading and disc height, with inconsistent results between levels. There is low quality evidence for an association of disc bulging with occupational loading, again with inconsistent results among spinal levels. There is low quality evidence of an association between occupational loading and osteophytes, Modic changes, Schmorl’s nodes and other endplate abnormalities.

The results do suggest that occupations with greater physical loading are associated with modestly greater spine degeneration although differences in loading conditions and outcomes between studies make it is difficult to draw strong, specific conclusions. This is especially true given that positive results were inconsistently found at different spinal levels and for different outcomes. Thus, it remains difficult to draw conclusions about which type of loading may negatively affect which type of degenerative or structural findings. Additionally, different imaging methods were used (e.g. MRI, CTScans and x-rays) and different methods to assess spine degeneration make it difficult to draw conclusions.

Limitations of the review are primarily related to the heterogeneity of the studies included. There was a wide range of types of occupational loading studied and a wide range of outcomes evaluated. Thus, although odds ratios were presented in the original manuscripts for most of the studies, it was not possible to pool the great majority of results and the findings of the review, therefore, were presented qualitatively. Finally, the poor methodological quality of some of the studies, with only a small portion assessing degeneration longitudinally, limits interpretation regarding the progression of spine degeneration.

Future research should focus on more longitudinal studies, where the development of spinal degeneration can be followed over time, with an adequate follow-up period to allow for structural changes to occur. Monozygotic twin studies should be considered, given the strength of twin study designs in minimizing possible confounding. Furthermore, individual loading exposures should be taken in consideration, especially as the activities and loading involved in any one profession can vary significantly. More specifically, the type and magnitude of loading should be depicted and evaluated in greater detail. Finally, with the advance of imaging techniques and measurement procedures, a wide variety of measures of spinal degeneration and pathology has resulted. Guidelines for measurement and better standardization of spine imaging phenotypes are needed to allow study comparisons and pooling of data to facilitate interpretation of the collective body of related research.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that there is moderate grade evidence of an association between occupational loading and disc degeneration in terms of signal intensity (disc degeneration). There is low or very low-quality grade evidence between loading and disc height, disc bulging, osteophytes, Modic changes, Schmorl’s nodes and other endplate abnormalities. While there seems to be a modest association between heavy occupational loading and spinal degenerative findings, the limitations of the results found in this review provide a weak foundation for practical applications and related health policies.

Availability of data and materials

The sources of data used in this study are available within the manuscripts and its supplementary files.

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence Interval

CTScans:

Computerized Tomography scan

GRADE:

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

LBP:

Low Back Pain

MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

OR:

Odds ratio

r:

correlation

References

  1. 1.

    Videman T, Gibbons LE, Kaprio J, Battie MC. Challenging the cumulative injury model: positive effects of greater body mass on disc degeneration. Spine J. 2010;10(1):26–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Biering-Sorensen F, Hansen FR, Schroll M, Runeborg O. The relation of spinal x-ray to low-back pain and physical activity among 60-year-old men and women. Spine. 1985;10(5):445–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Luoma K, Riihimaki H, Raininko R, Luukkonen R, Lamminen A, Viikari-Juntura E. Lumbar disc degeneration in relation to occupation. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1998;24(5):358–66.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hangai M, Kaneoka K, Kuno S, Hinotsu S, Sakane M, Mamizuka N, Sakai S, Ochiai N. Factors associated with lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration in the elderly. Spine J. 2008;8(5):732–40.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Savage RA, Whitehouse GH, Roberts N. The relationship between the magnetic resonance imaging appearance of the lumbar spine and low back pain, age and occupation in males. Eur Spine J. 1997;6(2):106–14.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Luoma K, Riihimaki H, Luukkonen R, Raininko R, Viikari-Juntura E, Lamminen A. Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine. 2000;25(4):487–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chou D, Samartzis D, Bellabarba C, Patel A, Luk KDK, Kisser JMS, Skelly AC. Degenerative magnetic resonance imaging changes in patients with chronic low Back pain a systematic review. Spine. 2011;36(21):S43–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Petocz P, Lin CC, Steffens D, Luque-Suarez A, Magnussen JS. Risk factors for a recurrence of low back pain. Spine J. 2015;15:2360–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    The Newcastle-Ottowa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses (2011) Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

  10. 10.

    Gibbons LE, Videman T, Battie MC. Isokinetic and psychophysical lifting strength, static back muscle endurance, and magnetic resonance imaging of the paraspinal muscles as predictors of low back pain in men. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1997;29(3):187–91.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Higgins JPT, Green S Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. In: the Cochrane library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  12. 12.

    Riihimaki H, Wickstrom G, Hanninen K, Mattsson T, Waris P, Zitting A. Radiographically detectable lumbar degenerative changes as risk indicators of back pain. A cross-sectional epidemiologic study of concrete reinforcement workers and house painters. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1989;15(4):280–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Edeiken J, Karasick D. Use of radiography for screening employees for risk of low-back disability. J Occup Med. 1986;28(10):995–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Campbell C, Muncer SJ. The causes of low back pain: a network analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(2):409–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Drerup B, Granitzka M, Assheuer J, Zerlett G. Assessment of disc injury in subjects exposed to long-term whole-body vibration. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(6):458–67.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Frymoyer JW, Rosen JC, Clements J, Pope MH. Psychologic factors in low-back-pain disability. Clin Orthop. 1985;195:178–84.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Karahan A, Kav S, Abbasoglu A, Dogan N. Low back pain: prevalence and associated risk factors among hospital staff. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(3):516–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04905.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mazloum A, Nozad H, Kumashiro M. Occupational low back pain among workers in some small-sized factories in Ardabil, Iran. Ind Health. 2006;44(1):135–9.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mhaskar VA, Pai S. Does the occupational activity level affect the quality of life of patients treated with epidural steroid injections for lumbar disc herniations? Asian Spine J. 2012;6(2):131–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Omokhodion FO, Sanya AO. Risk factors for low back pain among office workers in Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria. Occup Med. 2003;53(4):287–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Palmer KT, Harris CE, Griffin MJ, Bennett J, Reading I, Sampson M, Coggon D. Case-control study of low-back pain referred for magnetic resonance imaging, with special focus on whole-body vibration. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008;34(5):364–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Seidler A, Bolm-Audorff U, Heiskel H, Henkel N, Roth-Kuver B, Kaiser U, Bickeboller R, Willingstorfer WJ, Beck W, Elsner G. The role of cumulative physical work load in lumbar spine disease: risk factors for lumbar osteochondrosis and spondylosis associated with chronic complaints. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58(11):735–46.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Seidler A, Bolm-Audorff U, Siol T, Henkel N, Fuchs C, Schug H, Leheta F, Marquardt G, Schmitt E, Ulrich PT, Beck W, Missalla A, Elsner G. Occupational risk factors for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation; a case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(11):821–30.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Videman T, Battie MC, Gibbons LE, Maravilha K, Manninen H, Kaprio J. Associations between back pain history and lumbar MRI findings. Spine. 2003;28(6):582–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Dasinger LK, Krause N, Deegan LJ, Brand RJ, Rudolph L. Physical workplace factors and return to work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2000;42(3):323–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Zhang YG, Sun Z, Zhang Z, Liu J, Guo X. Risk factors for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation in Chinese population: a case-control study. Spine. 2009;34(25):E918–22.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Alund M, Larsson SE, Lewin T. Work-related persistent neck impairment: a study on former steelworks grinders. Ergonomics. 1994;37(7):1253–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Schwarze S, Notbohm G, Hartung E, Dupuis H. Effects of whole-body vibrations on the lumbar spine. Arbeitsmed Sozialmed Umweltmed. 1998;33(10):429–42.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    J-y J, S-l H, K-p L, Zhu J, J-l Z, Liao Y-h, Guan X, Wang X-r, Huang F. Epidemiological investigation of back pain and spondyloarthritis in Shougang resident communities. Chung Hua Nei Ko Tsa Chih. 2010;49(10):832–5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Boos N, Semmer N, Elfering A, Schade V, Gal I, Zanetti M, Kissling R, Buchegger N, Hodler J, Main CJ. Natural history of individuals with asymptomatic disc abnormalities in magnetic resonance imaging: predictors of low back pain-related medical consultation and work incapacity. Spine. 2000;25(12):1484–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dupuis H, Zerlett G. Whole -body vibration and disorders of the spine. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1987;59(4):323–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Schenk P, Laubli T, Hodler J, Klipstein A. Symptomatology of recurrent low back pain in nursing and administrative professions. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(11):1789–98.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Virtanen IM, Karppinen J, Taimela S, Ott J, Barral S, Kaikkonen K, Heikkila O, Mutanen P, Noponen N, Mannikko M, Tervonen O, Natri A, Ala-Kokko L. Occupational and genetic risk factors associated with intervertebral disc disease. Spine. 2007;32(10):1129–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000261473.03274.5c.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Tertti M, Paajanen H, Kujala UM, Alanen A, Salmi TT, Kormano M. Disc degeneration in young gymnast. A magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(2):206–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Tang CB, Cai RT, Yang L, Zhang GG, Li Y, Lu QF, Laurig W, Angerman K. An epidemiological study on the relationship between musculoskeletal disorders and work load. J Tongji Med Univ. 1995;15(1):59–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Leinonen V, Kankaanpaa M, Vanharanta H, Airaksinen O, Hanninen O. Back and neck extensor loading and back pain provocation in urban bus drivers with and without low back pain. Pathophysiology. 2005;12(4):249–55.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Seidler A, Euler U, Bolm-Audorff U, Ellegast R, Grifka J, Haerting J, Jager M, Michaelis M, Kuss O. Physical workload and accelerated occurrence of lumbar spine diseases: risk and rate advancement periods in a German multicenter case-control study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011;37(1):30–6.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bos E, Krol B, van der Star L, Groothoff J. Risk factors and musculoskeletal complaints in non-specialized nurses, IC nurses, operation room nurses, and X-ray technologists. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2007;80(3):198–206.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Granhed H, Morelli B. Low back pain among retired wrestlers and heavyweight lifters. Am J Sports Med. 1988;16(5):530–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Tiemessen IJH, Hulshof CTJ, Frings-Dresen MHW. Low back pain in drivers exposed to whole body vibration: analysis of a dose-response pattern. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(10):667–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Macdonald EB, Porter R, Hibbert C, Hart J. The relationship between spinal canal diameter and back pain in coal miners. Ultrasonic measurement as a screening test? J Occup Med. 1984;26(1):23–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Aharony S, Milgrom C, Wolf T, Barzilay Y, Applbaum YH, Schindel Y, Finestone A, Liram N. Magnetic resonance imaging showed no signs of overuse or permanent injury to the lumbar sacral spine during a special forces training course. Spine J. 2008;8(4):578–83.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Landau DA, Chapnick L, Yoffe N, Azaria B, Goldstein L, Atar E. Cervical and lumbar MRI findings in aviators as a function of aircraft type. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006;77(11):1158–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Baumann F, Beck A. Work-related spinal damage in jet pilots due to extreme acceleration. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1975;113(4):645–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kristen H, Lukeschitsch G, Ramach W. Investigation of the lumbar vertebral column in light-transport workers. Arbeitsmed Sozialmed Praventivmed. 1981;16(9):226–9.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Sharma A, Lancaster S, Bagade S, Hildebolt C. Early pattern of degenerative changes in individual components of intervertebral discs in stressed and nonstressed segments of lumbar spine: an in vivo magnetic resonance imaging study. Spine. 2014;39(13):1084–90.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Videman T, Battie MC, Gibbons LE, Manninen H, Gill K, Fisher LD, Koskenvuo M. Lifetime exercise and disk degeneration: an MRI study of monozygotic twins. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(10):1350–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kelsey JL. An epidemiological study of the relationship between occupations and acute herniated lumbar intervertebral discs. Int J Epidemiol. 1975;4(3):197–205.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Auerbach JD, Weidner ZD, Milby AH, Diab M, Lonner BS. Musculoskeletal disorders among spine surgeons: results of a survey of the scoliosis research society membership. Spine. 2011;36(26):E1715–21.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Bishop MD, Horn ME, Lott DJ, Arpan I, George SZ. Magnitude of spinal muscle damage is not statistically associated with exercise-induced low back pain intensity. Spine J. 2011;11(12):1135–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Boos N, Rieder R, Schade V, Spratt KF, Semmer N, Aebi M. 1995 Volvo award in clinical sciences. The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, work perception, and psychosocial factors in identifying symptomatic disc herniations. Spine. 1995;20(24):2613–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Liuke M, Solovieva S, Lamminen A, Luoma K, Leino-Arjas P, Luukkonen R, Riihimaki H. Disc degeneration of the lumbar spine in relation to overweight. Int J Obes. 2005;29(8):903–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Mattila VM, Sillanpää P, Visuri T, Pihlajamäki H. Incidence and trends of low back pain hospitalisation during military service--an analysis of 387,070 Finnish young males. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-10-10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Miller JL, Carragee JM. Discographic, MRI and psychosocial determinants of low back pain disability and remission: a prospective study in subjects with benign persistent back pain. Spine J. 2005;5(1):24–35.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Simmons ED Jr, Guntupalli M, Kowalski JM, Braun F, Seidel T. Familial predisposition for degenerative disc disease. A case-control study. Spine. 1996;21(13):1527–9.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Sambrook PN, MacGregor AJ, Spector TD. Genetic influences on cervical and lumbar disc degeneration: a magnetic resonance imaging study in twins. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42(2):366–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Karppinen J, Daavittila I, Solovieva S, Kuisma M, Taimela S, Natri A, Haapea M, Korpelainen R, Niinimaki J, Tervonen O, Ala-Kokko L, Mannikko M. Genetic factors are associated with modic changes in endplates of lumbar vertebral bodies. Spine. 2008;33(11):1236–41.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Livshits G, Popham M, Malkin I, Sambrook PN, MacGregor AJ, Spector T, Williams FMK. Lumbar disc degeneration and genetic factors are the main risk factors for low back pain in women: the UK twin spine study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(10):1740–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Aggrawal ND, Kaur R, Kumar S, Mathur DN. A study of changes in the spine in weight lifters and other athletes. Br J Sports Med. 1979;13(2):58–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Pye SR, Reid DM, Adams JE, Silman AJ, O'Neill TW. Influence of weight, body mass index and lifestyle factors on radiographic features of lumbar disc degeneration. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:426–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Cheung KMC, Karppinen J, Chan D, Ho DWH, Song Y-Q, Sham P, Cheah KSE, Leong JCY, Luk KDK. Prevalence and pattern of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging changes in a population study of one thousand forty-three individuals. Spine. 2009;34(9):934–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a01b3f.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Suri P, Hunter DJ, Boyko EJ, Rainville J, Guermazi A, Katz JN. Physical activity and associations with computed tomography-detected lumbar zygapophyseal joint osteoarthritis. Spine J. 2015;15(1):42–9.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Franco JL (2008) Modic changes: "Age, si quid agis"... Eur Spine J 2006 Sep;15(9):1312-1319. Eur Spine J 17 (12):1766–1768.

  64. 64.

    Rainville J, Kim RS, Katz JN. A review of 1985 Volvo award winner in clinical science: objective assessment of spine function following industrial injury: a prospective study with comparison group and 1-year follow-up. Spine. 2007;32(18):2031–4.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Williams FM, Sambrook PN. Neck and back pain and intervertebral disc degeneration: role of occupational factors. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25(1):69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2011.01.007.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Chaffin DB. Manual materials handling: the cause of over-exertion injury and illness in industry. J Environ Pathol Toxicol. 1979;2(5):31–66.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Harley WJ. Lost time back injuries: their rrelationship to heavy work and preplacement back x-rays. J Occup Med. 1972;14(8):611–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Borenstein DG, Burton JR. Lumbar spine disease in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41(2):167–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Williams FMK, Popham M, Livshits G, Sambrook PN, Spector TD, MacGregor AJ. A response to Videman et al., "challenging the cumulative injury model: positive effects of greater body mass on disc degeneration". Spine J. 2010;10(6):571–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Videman T, Nurminen M, Troup JD. 1990 Volvo award in clinical sciences. Lumbar spinal pathology in cadaveric material in relation to history of back pain, occupation, and physical loading. Spine. 1990;15(8):728–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Arun R, Freeman BJ, Scammell BE, McNally DS, Cox E, Gowland P. 2009 ISSLS prize winner: what influence does sustained mechanical load have on diffusion in the human intervertebral disc?: an in vivo study using serial postcontrast magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 2009;34(21):2324–37.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Belfi LM, Ortiz AO, Katz DS. Computed tomography evaluation of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in asymptomatic patients. Spine. 2006;31(24):E907–10.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Boos N, Rieder R, Schade V, Spratt KF, Semmer N, Aebi M. The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, work perception, and psychosocial factors in identifying symptomatic disc herniations. Spine. 1995;20(24):2613–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Farfan HF, Cossette JW, Robertson GH, Wells RV, Kraus H. The effects of torsion on the lumbar intervertebral joints: the role of torsion in the production of disc degeneration. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(3):468–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Gunning JL, Callaghan JP, McGill SM. Spinal posture and prior loading history modulate compressive strength and type of failure in the spine: a biomechanical study using a porcine cervical spine model. Clin Biomech. 2001;16(6):471–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Olsewski JM, Schendel MJ, Wallace LJ, Ogilvie JW, Gundry CR. Magnetic resonance imaging and biological changes in injured intervertebral discs under normal and increased mechanical demands. Spine. 1996;21(17):1945–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Bible JE, Choemprayong S, O'Neill K, Devin CJ, Spengler DM. Whole-body vibration. Is there a causal relationship to specific imaging findings of the spine? Spine. 2012;37(21):E1348–55.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Gooyers CE, McMillan RD, Howarth SJ, Callaghan JP. The impact of posture and prolonged cyclic compressive loading on vertebral joint mechanics. Spine. 2012;37(17):E1023–9.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Stemper BD, Baisden J, Yogamandan N, Pintar FA, Tarima S, Xiang Q, Paskoff GR, Shender BS. Lumbar spine injury tolerance during high-rate axial loading. Spine J. 2013;13:13S–4S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Brinckmann P, Frobin W, Biggemann M, Hilweg D, Seidel S, Burton K, Tillotson M, Sandover J, Atha J, Quinnell R. Quantification of overload injuries to thoracolumbar vertebrae and discs in persons exposed to heavy physical exertions or vibration at the work-place. Clin Biomech. 1994;9(SUPPL. 1):S1–S83.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Arora M, Paoloni JA, Kandwal P, Diwan AD. Are fast-bowlers prone to back injuries? Prevalence of lumbar spine injuries in fast-bowlers: review of MRI-based studies. Asian J Sports Med. 2014;5(4):e24291.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Seidler A, Bergmann A, Jager M, Ellegast R, Ditchen D, Elsner G, Grifka J, Haerting J, Hofmann F, Linhardt O, Luttmann A, Michaelis M, Petereit-Haack G, Schumann B, Bolm-Audorff U. Cumulative occupational lumbar load and lumbar disc disease--results of a German multi-center case-control study (EPILIFT). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Sun ZM, Ling M, Chang YH, Liu ZZ, Xu HH, Gong LQ, Liu J, Zhang YG. Case-control study of the risk factors of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation in 5 northern provinces of China. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2010;30(11):2488–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Nienhaus A, Elsner G, Beck W. Degenerative discopathies of occupational origin in the region of the lumbar spine. Arbeitsmed Sozialmed Praventivmed. 1992;27(10):415–22.

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Liu S, Zhang H, Liu X, Shen Y, Dai W, Ju Z, Ma J, Xu W. Study on vertebral degenerations of coal miners with low back pain by means of computerized tomography. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2002;20(1):10–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Bergmann A, Meisel HJ, Bolm-Audorff U, Ditchen D, Ellegast R, Elsner G, Grifka J, Haerting J, Hoffmann F, Jager M, Linhardt O, Luttmann A, Michaelis M, Petereit-Haack G, Schumann B, Seidler A (2010) Physical workload - a relevant factor for developing lumbar disc diseases (German spine study epilift). Spine conference (journal article):38th.

  87. 87.

    Mariconda M, Galasso O, Imbimbo L, Lotti G, Milano C. Relationship between alterations of the lumbar spine, visualized with magnetic resonance imaging, and occupational variables. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(2):255–66.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Vanharanta H, Heliovaara M, Korpi J, Troup JD. Occupation, work load and the size and shape of lumbar vertebral canals. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1987;13(2):146–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Shambrook J, McNee P, Harris E, Kim M, Sampson M, Palmer K, Coggan D. Clinical presentation of low back pain and association with risk factors according to findings on magnetic resonance imaging. Pain. 2011;152:1659–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Saberi H, Rahimi L, Jahani L. A comparative MRI study of upper and lower lumbar motion segments in patients with low back pain. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(7):507–10.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Palmer KT, Griffin M, Ntani G, Shambrook J, McNee P, Sampson M, Harris EC, Coggon D. Professional driving and prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging: a case-control study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38(6):577–81. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Rossi A, Marino G, Barbieri L, Borrelli A, Onofri C, Rolli M, Baldi R. Backache from exertion in health personnel of the Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli in Bologna. A case-control study of the injury phenomenon in the 10-year period of 1987-1996. Epidemiol Prev. 1999;23(2):98–104.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Bridger RS, Groom MR, Jones H, Pethybridge RJ, Pullinger N. Task and postural factors are related to back pain in helicopter pilots. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002;73(8):805–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Nohejl J, Dostal C, Faberova R, Malecek J, Roth Z, Trnavsky K. Preliminary results of an epidemiological study of back pain in a Prague population. Czech Med. 1987;10(2):117–24.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Birlik G. Occupational exposure to whole body vibration-train drivers. Ind Health. 2009;47(1):5–10.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Elsner G, Nienhaus A, Beck W. Occupationally-induced degenerative discopathies in the area of the lumbar spine. Soz Praventivmed. 1997;42(3):144–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Hamalainen O, Vanharanta H, Kuusela T. Degeneration of cervical intervertebral disks in fighter pilots frequently exposed to high +Gz forces. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1993;64(8):692–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Joosab M, Torode M, Rao PV. Preliminary findings on the effect of load-carrying to the structural integrity of the cervical spine. Surg Radiol Anat. 1994;16(4):393–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Kartal A, Yildiran I, Senkoylu A, Korkusuz F. Soccer causes degenerative changes in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(1):76–82.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Danckwerth F, Castro WHM, Assheuer J. Morphological changes at the cervical spine among professional string instrument players? Zentralbl Arbeitsmed Arbeitsschutz Ergonomie. 1996;46(10):362–9.

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Wang Y, Owoc JS, Boyd SK, Videman T, Battie MC. Occupational loading may not affect the association between vertebral trabecular bone and intervertebral disc narrowing. Bone. 2013;57(2):375–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2013.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Bakhtiar CS, Suneetha S, Vijay R. Conservative approaches benefit occupation-related backaches in milk-vendors and goldsmiths. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2002;6(4):186–8.

    Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Kuisma M, Karppinen J, Niinimaki J, Ojala R, Haapea M, Heliovaara M, Korpelainen R, Taimela S, Natri A, Tervonen O. Modic changes in endplates of lumbar vertebral bodies: prevalence and association with low back and sciatic pain among middle-aged male workers. Spine. 2007;32(10):1116–22.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Battie MC, Videman T, Levalahti E, Gill K, Kaprio J. Heritability of low back pain and the role of disc degeneration. Pain. 2007;131:272–80.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Videman T, Battie MC, Parent E, Gibbons LE, Vainio P, Kaprio J. Progression and determinants of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging measures of lumbar disc degeneration: a five-year follow-up of adult male monozygotic twins. Spine. 2008;33(13):1484–90.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Hendriksen IJ, Holewijn M. Degenerative changes of the spine of fighter pilots of the Royal Netherlands air Force (RNLAF). Aviat Space Environ Med. 1999;70(11):1057–63.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Kuisma M, Karppinen J, Haapea M, Niinimaki J, Ojala R, Heliovaara M, Korpelainen R, Kaikkonen K, Taimela S, Natri A, Tervonen O. Are the determinants of vertebral endplate changes and severe disc degeneration in the lumbar spine the same? A magnetic resonance imaging study in middle-aged male workers. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Kumar A, Varghese M, Mohan D, Mahajan P, Gulati P, Kale S. Effect of whole-body vibration on the low back. A study of tractor-driving farmers in North India. Spine. 1999;24(23):2506–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Videman T, Simonen R, Usenius J, Osterman K, Battie M. The long-term effects of rally driving on spinal pathology. Clin Biomech. 2000;15(2):83–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Sovelius R, Salonen O, Lamminen A, Huhtala H, Hamalainen O. Spinal MRI in fighter pilots and controls: a 13-year longitudinal study. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2008;79(7):685–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Battie MC, Videman T, Gibbons LE, Manninen H, Gill K, Pope M, Kaprio J. Occupational driving and lumbar disc degeneration: a case-control study. Lancet. 2002;360(9343):1369–74.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Aydog ST, Turbedar E, Demirel AH, Tetik O, Akin A, Doral MN. Cervical and lumbar spinal changes diagnosed in four-view radiographs of 732 military pilots. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004;75(2):154–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Byeon JH, Kim JW, Jeong HJ, Sim YS, Kim DK, Choi JK, Im HJ, Kim GC. Degenerative changes of spine in helicopter pilots. Ann Rehabil Med. 2013;37(5):706–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Fischer V, Witt AN, Troeger C. Vibration-induced injuries to the vertebral column of helicopter pilots. Arbeitsmed Sozialmed Praventivmed. 1980;15(7):161–3.

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Christ W, Dupuis H (1968) Studies on the possibility of physical damage to the spinal area in tractor operators. II. Report on the 2d mass examination of 137 young farmers. Med welt 37 (journal article):1967-1972.

  116. 116.

    Kaneoka K, Shimizu K, Hangai M, Okuwaki T, Mamizuka N, Sakane M, Ochiai N. Lumbar intervertebral disk degeneration in elite competitive swimmers - a case control study. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(8):1341–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546507300259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Baranto A, Hellstrom M, Cederlund CG, Nyman R, Sward L. Back pain and MRI changes in the thoraco-lumbar spine of top athletes in four different sports: a 15-year follow-up study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(9):1125–34.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Ichikawa N, Ohara Y, Morishita T, Taniguichi Y, Koshikawa A, Matsukura N. An aetiological study on spondylolysis from a biomechanical aspect. Br J Sports Med. 1982;16(3):135–41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Videman T, Sarna S, Battie MC, Koskinen S, Gill K, Paananen H, Gibbons L. The long-term effects of physical loading and exercise lifestyles on back-related symptoms, disability, and spinal pathology among men. Spine. 1995;20(6):699–709.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Rachbauer F, Sterzinger W, Eibl G. Radiographic abnormalities in the thoracolumbar spine of young elite skiers. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(4):446–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Ozturk B, Gunduz OH, Ozoran K, Bostanoglu S. Effect of continuous lumbar traction on the size of herniated disc material in lumbar disc herniation. Rheumatol Int. 2006;26(7):622–6.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Nagashima M, Abe H, Amaya K, Matsumoto H, Yanaihara H, Nishiwaki Y, Toyama Y, Matsumoto M. Risk factors for lumbar disc degeneration in high school American football players a prospective 2-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(9):2059–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513495173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Kraft CN, Pennekamp PH, Becker U, Young M, Diedrich O, Luering C, von Falkenhausen M. Magnetic resonance imaging findings of the lumbar spine in elite horseback riders correlations with Back pain, body mass index, trunk/leg-length coefficient, and riding discipline. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(11):2205–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509336927.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Vadala G, Russo F, Battisti S, Stellato L, Martina F, Del Vescovo R, Giacalone A, Borthakur A, Zobel BB, Denaro V. Early intervertebral disc degeneration changes in asymptomatic weightlifters assessed by t1p-magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 2014;39(22):1881–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Riihimaki H, Mattsson T, Zitting A, Wickstrom G, Hanninen K, Waris P. Radiographically detectable degenerative changes of the lumbar spine among concrete reinforcement workers and house painters. Spine. 1990;15(2):114–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Schenk P, Laubli T, Hodler J, Klipstein A. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine: findings in female subjects from administrative and nursing professions. Spine. 2006;31(23):2701–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Videman T, Levalahti E, Battie MC. The effects of anthropometrics, lifting strength, and physical activities in disc degeneration. Spine. 2007;32(13):1406–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Battie MC, Videman T, Gibbons LE, Fisher LD, Manninen H, Gill K (1995) 1995 Volvo award in clinical sciences. Determinants of lumbar disc degeneration. A study relating lifetime exposures and magnetic resonance imaging findings in identical twins Spine 20 (24):2601–2612.

  129. 129.

    Elfering A, Semmer N, Birkhofer D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Risk factors for lumbar disc degeneration: a 5-year prospective MRI study in asymptomatic individuals. Spine. 2002;27(2):125–34.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Munoz-Gomez J, Bernades-Bernat E, Valenzuela-Castano A, Duro-Pujol JC. Clinico-radiological correlation of the dorsal spine in a population of workers. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic. 1980;47(3):175–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Brinckmann P, Frobin W, Biggeman M, Tillotson M, Burton K. Quantification of overload injuries to thoracolumbar vertebrae and discs in persons exposed to heavy physical exertions or vibration at the workplace. Part II. Occurrence and magnitude of overload injury in exposed cohorts. Clin Biomech. 1998;13(SUPPL. 2):S36.

    Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Frymoyer JW, Newberg A, Pope MH, Wilder DG, Clements J, MacPherson B. Spine radiographs in patients with low-back pain. An epidemiological study in men. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(7):1048–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Hung YJ, Shih TT, Chen BB, Hwang YH, Ma LP, Huang WC, Liou SH, Ho IK, Guo YL. The dose-response relationship between cumulative lifting load and lumbar disk degeneration based on magnetic resonance imaging findings. Phys Ther. 2014;94(11):1582–93.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Hartwig E, Hoellen I, Liener U, Kramer M, Wickstroem M, Kinzl L. Occupational disease 2108. Degeneration pattern in magnetic resonance tomography of the lumbar spine in patient with differential weight-bearing activity. Unfallchirurg. 1997;100(11):888–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Han C, Kuang MJ, Ma JX, Ma XL. Prevalence of Modic changes in the lumbar vertebrae and their associations with workload, smoking and weight in northern China. Sci Rep. 2017;7:46341. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46341.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Arevalo G, Varela C, Gijon L, Rosas ML, Arevalo F. Modifiable risk factors and lumbar disc herniation: results of a case control study in 652 patients. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;57:e197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Videman T, Battie MC, Ripatti S, Gill K, Manninen H, Kaprio J. Determinants of the progression in lumbar degeneration: a 5-year follow-up study of adult male monozygotic twins. Spine. 2006;31(6):671–8.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the research assistants that worked in this study and helped with data collection; Kenny Noguchi, Jennifer Nelson, Demian Carson and Christine Ha.

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

LM conceptualized the study, conducted searchers, data extraction, data analysis, interpretation and write up of the manuscript. MCB conceptualized the study, conducted data analysis, interpretation and write up of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciana G. Macedo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Dr. Macedo is an associate editor of BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

Search strategy section.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macedo, L.G., Battié, M.C. The association between occupational loading and spine degeneration on imaging – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20, 489 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2835-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Occupational load
  • Spine degeneration
  • Disc degeneration
  • Disc height
  • Imaging
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • X-ray