Can discoblock replace discography for identifying painful degenerated discs?

Frequency of use of discography findings for the diagnosis of low back pain of discogenic origin. Systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

There are different techniques and interpretations of discography findings to determine it positive for the diagnosis of discogenic pain. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of use of discography findings for the diagnosis of low back pain of discogenic origin.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the last 17 years was performed in MEDLINE and BIREME. A total of 625 articles were identified, 555 were excluded for duplicates, title and abstract. We obtained 70 full texts of which 36 were included in the analysis after excluding 34 for not meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Among the criteria in discography to determine it as positive, 8 studies used only the pain response to the procedure, 28 studies used more than one criterion during discography to consider it as positive, the evaluation of at least one adjacent intervertebral disc with a negative result was necessary in 26 studies to consider a discography as positive. Five studies formally expressed the use of the technique described by SIS/IASP to determine a discography as positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain in response to contrast medium injection, assessed with the visual analog pain scale≥6, was the most used criterion in the studies included in this review. Although there are already criteria to determine a discography as positive, the use of different techniques and interpretations of discography findings to determine a positive discography for low back pain of discogenic origin persists.

[Translated article] Frequency of use of discography findings for the diagnosis of low back pain of discogenic origin. Systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

There are different techniques and interpretations of discography findings to determine it positive for the diagnosis of discogenic pain. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of use of discography findings for the diagnosis of low back pain of discogenic origin.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the last 17 years was performed in MEDLINE and BIREME. A total of 625 articles were identified, 555 were excluded for duplicates, title and abstract. We obtained 70 full texts of which 36 were included in the analysis after excluding 34 for not meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Among the criteria in discography to determine it as positive, 8 studies used only the pain response to the procedure, 28 studies used more than one criterion during discography to consider it as positive, the evaluation of at least one adjacent intervertebral disc with a negative result was necessary in 26 studies to consider a discography as positive. Five studies formally expressed the use of the technique described by SIS/IASP to determine a discography as positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain in response to contrast medium injection, assessed with the visual analogue pain scale ≥6, was the most used criterion in the studies included in this review. Although there are already criteria to determine a discography as positive, the use of different techniques and interpretations of discography findings to determine a positive discography for low back pain of discogenic origin persists.

Comparison of the effect of diagnosing discogenic low back pain by sinuvertebral nerve block versus discoblock a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of sinuvertebral nerve blocks in the diagnosis of discogenic low back pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, the data of 48 patients with high clinical suspicion of discogenic low back pain from L4/5 who received nerve block treatment from 2017 to 2018 were collected. Twenty-four patients received discoblock (L4/5 intradiscal injection of 1 ml 0.5% lidocaine) and another 24 patients received the sinuvertebral nerve block(L4/5 intervertebral space injection of 0.5 ml 0.5% lidocaine bilaterally). Percutaneous endoscopic radiofrequency thermal annuloplasty was performed in patients who responded to the diagnostic block. The visual analogue scale scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores in both groups before and 1, 3, and 12 months after surgery were compared.

RESULTS

Ten patients with a negative diagnostic block did not undergo surgery. Eighteen patients in the discoblock group and 20 patients in the sinuvertebral nerve block group showed a positive response and were evaluated. There were no differences in visual analogue scale or Oswestry Disability Index scores between the two cohorts at baseline or at all time points postsurgery (all p > 0.05). When comparing baseline values to all time points postsurgery improved visual analogue scale scores, and Oswestry Disability Index scores were observed within both cohorts (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The effect of sinuvertebral nerve block as a diagnostic tool for discogenic low back pain is similar to that of discoblock, and it is a promising tool that deserves further study.

Correlation between the degree of pain relief following discoblock and short-term surgical disability outcome among patients with suspected discogenic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how well the degree of pain relief after discoblock predicts the disability outcome of subsequent fusion or total disc replacement (TDR) surgery, based on short-term Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a set of patients who had undergone discoblock and subsequent fusion or TDR surgery of the same lumbar intervertebral disc due to suspected discogenic chronic LBP between 2011 and 2018. We calculated the degree of pain relief following discoblock (ΔNRS) and the changes in both absolute and percentual ODI scores (ΔODI and ΔODI%, respectively) following fusion or TDR surgery. We analyzed the statistical significance of ΔNRS and ΔODI and the correlation (Spearman's rho) between ΔNRS and ΔODI%. The fusion and TDR group were analyzed both in combination and separately.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were eligible for the current study (fusion n=9, TDR n=6). ΔNRS was statistically significant in all groups, and ΔODI was statistically significant in the combined group and in the fusion group alone. The parameters of both decreased. We found a Spearman's rho of 0.57 (p=0.026) between ΔNRS and ΔODI% for the combined group. The individual Spearman's rho values were 0.85 (p=0.004) for the fusion group and 0.62 (p=0.191) for the TDR group.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that discoblock is a useful predictive criterion for disability outcome prior to surgery for discogenic LBP, especially when stabilizing spine surgery is under consideration.

ETHICAL COMMITTEE NUMBER

174/2019 (Oulu University Hospital Ethics Committee).

Intradiscal quantitative chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI signal correlates with discogenic pain in human patients

Low back pain (LBP) is often a result of a degenerative process in the intervertebral disc. The precise origin of discogenic pain is diagnosed by the invasive procedure of provocative discography (PD). Previously, we developed quantitative chemical exchange saturation transfer (qCEST) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect pH as a biomarker for discogenic pain. Based on these findings we initiated a clinical study with the goal to evaluate the correlation between qCEST values and PD results in LBP patients. Twenty five volunteers with chronic low back pain were subjected to T2-weighted (T2w) and qCEST MRI scans followed by PD. A total of 72 discs were analyzed. The average qCEST signal value of painful discs was significantly higher than non-painful discs (p = 0.012). The ratio between qCEST and normalized T2w was found to be significantly higher in painful discs compared to non-painful discs (p = 0.0022). A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis indicated that qCEST/T2w ratio could be used to differentiate between painful and non-painful discs with 78% sensitivity and 81% specificity. The results of the study suggest that qCEST could be used for the diagnosis of discogenic pain, in conjunction with the commonly used T2w scan.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Safety and Efficacy of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Discogenic Chronic Low Back Pain in a Short-stay Setting: Data From a Prospective Registry

Introduction As a possible treatment option for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) due to single-level degenerative disc disorder (DDD), the efficacy of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has been reviewed various times in the existing literature. Nevertheless, a scarcity of data exists pertaining to ALIF procedures carried out in a short-stay setting using an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol, particularly concerning the safety. Methods Prospectively collected data are analyzed to study the efficacy and safety of short-stay ERAS ALIF in treatment of single-level DDD. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in both back and leg pain along with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to collect measure outcomes. The primary endpoint was a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of ≥30% for the ODI at 12 months. Results Forty-four patients underwent surgery after failed long-term conservative treatment. MCID was achieved in 78%. Age was the only significant factor in association with MCID (p = 0.03), while gender, Modic changes, results of prognostic tests, prior surgery and smoking status had no significant influence on either MCID or change scores for any outcome measure. One complication in the form of transient new radiculopathy occurred in one patient (2.3%). Conclusion With overall positive outcomes in terms of both efficacy and safety, an ALIF procedure with subsequent implementation of an ERAS protocol in a short-stay setting can be an option for strictly selected patients with CLBP. Further study, however, possibly with a larger sample size, would be necessary to substantiate these findings.

Identifying subsets of patients with single-level degenerative disc disease for lumbar fusion: the value of prognostic tests in surgical decision making

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease (DDD) has become a standard of care, albeit not without controversy. Outcomes are inconsistent and a superiority over conservative treatment is debatable. Proper patient selection is key to clinical success, and a comprehensive understanding of prognostic tests does not currently exist.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the value of prognostic tests and sociodemographic factors in predicting outcomes following lumbar fusion surgery for DDD.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We included patients who underwent fusion surgery for DDD between 2010 and 2016.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures included pre- and postoperative visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected patient data were reviewed for preoperative tests, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes. Prognostic tests used were discography, pantaloon cast test (PCT), Modic changes, and a summary of physical symptoms, coined "loading factor." By means of multivariate stepwise regression, prognostic factors that were useful in predicting outcomes were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 91 patients fit the inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up of 33±16 months. Discography, Modic changes, and loading factor were of no value for predicting outcome scores (p>.05). A positive PCT predicted improved outcomes in back pain severity, but only in patients without prior surgery (p=.02). Demographic factors that showed a consistent reduction in back pain were female sex (p=.021) and no prior surgery at index level (p=.009). No other sociodemographic factors were of predictive value (p>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without prior surgery, the PCT appears to be the most promising prognostic tool. Other prognostic selection tools such as discography and Modic changes yield disappointing results. In this study, female patients and those without prior spine surgery appear to be most likely to benefit from fusion surgery for DDD.

The surgical treatment of non-specific low back pain

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued guidelines that state fusion for non-specific low back pain should only be performed as part of a randomised controlled trial, and that lumbar disc replacement should not be performed. Thus, spinal fusion and disc replacement will no longer be routine forms of treatment for patients with low back pain. This annotation considers the evidence upon which these guidelines are based.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1003–1005.

Nucleoplasty for treating lumbar disk degenerative low back pain: an outcome prediction analysis

Purpose

Nucleoplasty is a minimally invasive technique that is considered efficacious in alleviating lumbar disk degenerative low back pain (LBP). The efficacy of nucleoplasty and identified variables that can predict pain relief for nucleoplasty was reported.

Patients and methods

Between December 2013 and November 2015, 47 nucleoplasty procedures on 47 lumbar disks in 31 consecutive patients were performed. The outcome was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) score. Improvements of ≥50% in VAS scores were considered substantial pain relief. The variables associated with pain relief after nucleoplasty included: 1) age; 2) sex; 3) body mass index; 4) hyperintensity zone at the rear of the disk; 5) hypointensity of the disk; 6) Modic changes of the end plates; 7) spinal instability pain; and 8) discography results.

Results

Twenty-one patients (67.7%) experienced substantial pain relief. The most common side effects following nucleoplasty were soreness at the needle puncture site (64.5%), numbness in the lower leg (12.9%), and increased intensity of back pain (9.7%). All side effects were transient. Multivariate analysis revealed that the discography results were the most critical predictor for substantial pain relief of nucleoplasty (P=0.03). The sensitivity and specificity of discography were 92.8% and 62.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

Discography results could improve the success rate of nucleoplasty in the treatment of disk degenerative LBP.

Minimally invasive transaxial lumbosacral interbody fusion: a ten year single-centre experience

PURPOSE

Our aim was to evaluate mid- and long-term results in a cohort of patients who underwent minimally invasive transaxial lumbosacral fixation and to identify clinical and other parameters that can aid in proper patient selection.

METHODS

Over a period of ten years, we assessed 164 patients who had a complete follow-up of a minimum of one year (average 54 months). On follow-up, we recorded clinical status, fusion status, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Lower Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) scores and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were no intra- or peri-operative complications. Overall clinical success rate was 73.8 %. Only sex (female), working status (still working), body mass index (BMI) (lower) and presence of Modic II changes (absent) were correlated with a good result.

CONCLUSIONS

Transaxial fixation is a safe, minimally invasive technique that can offer good results in patients with single-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) at the lumbosacral level, with minimal operative risk.

[Interventions on the intervertebral discs. Indications, techniques and evidence levels]

CLINICAL ISSUE

Over the last decades a number of different minimally invasive interventions have been proposed for the treatment of intervertebral disc herniation and degeneration. All of these interventions aim at relieving pressure from compressed nerve roots by mechanical ablation, chemical dissolution, evaporation or coagulation of disc tissue.

STANDARD TREATMENT

Microsurgical sequestrectomy with direct visualization of the spinal canal.

TREATMENT INNOVATIONS

Minimally invasive intradiscal interventions, such as chemonucleolysis, manual and automated disc decompression, laser disc decompression, nucleoplasty and thermal anular radiofrequency (RF) techniques with posterolateral access to the intervertebral disc.

PERFORMANCE

The effectiveness and safety of the different minimally invasive procedures are compared to the standard surgical procedure on the basis of a literature review.

ACHIEVEMENTS

For patients with disc herniation requiring surgery, microsurgical sequestrectomy is the treatment of choice, while discectomy is obsolete. Intradiscal procedures have a low level of evidence while long-term results are still lacking. Randomized controlled trials are required to generate evidence-based results.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Indications for treatment should be established by an interdisciplinary team with the choice of treatment depending on the interventionalist's expertise and skills. In carefully selected patients scheduled for elective treatment, the different minimally invasive procedures allow adequate treatment when performed by an experienced interventionalist.

In vivo effects of bupivacaine and gadobutrol on the intervertebral disc following discoblock and discography: a histological analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to histologically compare chondrotoxicity in surgically harvested intervertebral discs (IVDs) of patients following discoblock, discography, or no preoperative intervention.

METHODS

Thirty patients (IVD degeneration Modic ≥ 2°, Pfirrmann 3° or 4°) at L4/5 or L5/S1 who were planned for anterior lumbar interbody fusion were randomly assigned to three groups (open MRI: group DG - discography with gadobutrol; group DB - discoblock with bupivacaine at 4 weeks prior to surgery; group C - no intervention). The intervertebral discs were histologically evaluated and compared using ANOVA and Bonferroni tests for cell count, apoptosis, and proliferation.

RESULTS

A reduced cell count (groups DG vs. DB vs. C: 14.9 ± 7.1, 9.2 ± 3.8, and 16.6 ± 5.2 cells/mm², respectively; p _ANOVA = 0.016), increased apoptosis (groups DG vs. DB vs. C: 34.9 ± 10.2, 47.4 ± 16.3, 32.6 ± 12.2 %, respectively; p _ANOVA = 0.039) and increased cell proliferation (post hoc pDB vs. DG or C p < 0.001; for 3-7 cell monoclonal cell nests: groups DG vs. DB vs. C: 2.4 ± 1, 3.9 ± 1, 2.2 ± 1.1, respectively; p _{interventionx nest size} = 0.006) were found in the IVDs of patients in group DB.

CONCLUSIONS

This in vivo study suggests that chondrotoxic effects occur in IVD cells after the intradiscal injection of bupivacaine but not after gadobutrol administration.

KEY POINTS

• Local bupivacaine administration to intervertebral discs leads to cell toxicity and proliferation. • Gadobutrol demonstrated no significant effect on cell count, apoptosis, or cell proliferation. • In vivo cytotoxicity was demonstrated histologically in humans for the first time. • Addition/administration of bupivacaine during discographies must be judged critically.

Postoperative posterior lumbar muscle changes and their relationship to segmental motion preservation or restriction: a randomized prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To date, it remains unclear whether the preservation of segmental motion by total disc replacement (TDR) or motion restriction by stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) have an influence on postoperative degeneration of the posterior paraspinal muscles or the associated clinical results. Therefore, the purpose of the present prospective randomized study was to evaluate the clinical parameters and 3D quantitative radiological changes in the paraspinal muscles of the lumbar spine in surgically treated segments and superior adjacent segments after ALIF and TDR.

METHODS

A total of 50 patients with chronic low-back pain caused by single-level intervertebral disc degeneration (Pfirrmann Grade ≥ III) and/or osteochondrosis (Modic Type ≤ 2) without symptomatic facet joint degeneration (Fujiwara Grade ≤ 2, infiltration test) of the segments L4-5 or L5-S1 were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups. Twenty-five patients were treated with a stand-alone ALIF and the remaining 25 patients underwent TDR. For ALIF and TDR, a retroperitoneal approach was used. At 1 week and at 12 months after surgery, CT was used to analyze paraspinal lumbar muscle tissue volume and relative fat content. Residual muscle tissue volume at 12 months and change in the relative fat content were compared between the groups. In addition, clinical parameters (visual analog scale [VAS] for low-back pain and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] Questionnaire Version 2 for function) were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with 1 week after surgery, the radiological analysis at 12 months revealed a small decrease in the posterior muscle volume (the mean decrease was < 2.5%), along with a small increase in the relative fat content (the mean increase was < 1.9%), in both groups at the index and superior adjacent segments. At the adjacent segment, the ALIF group presented significantly less muscle tissue volume atrophy and a smaller increase in fat content compared with the TDR group. At final follow-up, the clinical parameters related to pain and function were significantly improved in both groups compared with 1 week postsurgery, but there were no differences between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Motion restriction via stand-alone ALIF and motion preservation via TDR both present small changes in the posterior lumbar paraspinal muscles with regard to volume atrophy or fatty degeneration at the index and superior adjacent segments. Therefore, although the clinical outcome was not affected by the observed muscular changes, the authors concluded that the expected negative influence of motion restriction on the posterior muscles compared with motion preservation does not occur on a clinically relevant level.