• Spine J · Jul 2005

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of discographic findings in asymptomatic subject discs and the negative discs of chronic LBP patients: can discography distinguish asymptomatic discs among morphologically abnormal discs?

    • Richard Derby, Byung-Jo Kim, Sang-Heon Lee, Yung Chen, Kwan-Sik Seo, and Charles Aprill.
    • Spinal Diagnostics and Treatment Center, 901 Campus Dr., Daly City, CA 94015, USA.
    • Spine J. 2005 Jul 1;5(4):389-94.

    Background ContextLumbar discography has been widely used for evaluating discogenic low back pain (LBP). Comparison of pain responses from suspected symptomatic discs with pain responses from asymptomatic negative discs is routine. However, the ability of discography to distinguish asymptomatic morphologically abnormal discs from those that are symptomatic has been understudied. In addition, the discographic characteristics of negative discs in patients with chronic discogenic LBP have not been reported. Criteria for negative morphologically abnormal discs may be valuable for excluding discs from further treatment and examination.PurposeTo determine if discography can distinguish asymptomatic discs among morphologically abnormal discs in patients with suspected chronic discogenic LBP and establish the standard characteristics of negative discs.Study Design/SettingProspective, experimental with control group.Patient SampleFifty-five discs from a control group of 16 healthy volunteers without current back pain (11 men, 5 women, 32-61 years of age, mean age: 47 years) and 282 discs from a patient group of 90 LBP patients (59 men, 31 women, 20-70 years of age, mean age: 44.7 years) were recruited.MethodsDiscography was performed using a pressure-controlled manometric technique with an injection rate of 0.05 mL/s and a 3.5 mL restricted total volume. Concordance was rated as none/unfamiliar, or familiar. Pain was rated via a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). The pressure and volume at which pain was evoked and NRS pain responses at 15, 30, and 50 psi were recorded. Annular disruption grade was rated during the procedure by computed tomography discography and fluoroscopic imaging. Negative discogram required no pain described by the participant as "familiar," with no pain responses >or=6/10 NRS at pressures ResultsAmong 55 asymptomatic control group discs, 32 (58.2%) exhibited Grade 3 annular tear. All discs in the asymptomatic control group satisfied negative response criteria. Among 282 patient group discs, 199 (70.6%) exhibited Grade 3 annular tear. Of 199 discs with Grade 3 annular tears, 104 (52.3%) satisfied negative response criteria and were categorized as the Neg-D group. The other 95 discs were categorized as a Pos-D group. Patients showed significantly lower pain tolerance relative to control subjects (p<.05). The control and Neg-D groups showed similar pressures and volumes at which pain was initially evoked. Mean control group pain scores were 0.47 NRS at 15 psi and 1.58 NRS at 50 psi. Mean Neg-D group pain scores were 0.11 NRS at 15 psi and 1.1 NRS at 50 psi. Discographic findings for the Pos-D group were significantly different from those of the control and Neg-D groups (p<.001).ConclusionsPain tolerance was significantly lower in patients relative to asymptomatic subjects. Negative patient discs and asymptomatic subject discs showed similar characteristics. Pressure-controlled manometric discography using strict criteria may distinguish asymptomatic discs among morphologically abnormal discs with Grade 3 annular tears in patients with suspected chronic discogenic LBP.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…