Search

Background Context: Lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion are effective methods of treating spinal compressive pathologies refractory to conservative management. These surgeries are typically used to treat different spinal problems, but there is a growing body of literature investigating the outcomes of either approach for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis. Different operations are associated with different risks and different potential needs for reoperation. Patient acceptance of reoperation rates after spinal surgery is currently not well understood., Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify patient tolerance for reoperation rates following lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion surgery., Design: A qualitative and quantitative survey intended to capture information on patient preferences was administered., Patient Sample: Written informed consent was obtained from patients presenting to 2 spinal clinics., Outcome Measures: Patients were asked their threshold tolerance for reoperation rates in the context of choosing a smaller (decompression) versus larger (fusion) spinal surgery., Methods: A survey was administered to patients at 2 spinal clinics-1 surgical and 1 nonsurgical. A consecutive series of new patients over multiple clinic days who agreed to participate in the study and filled out the survey are reported on here. Patients were asked to assess, contemplating a problem that could either be treated with lumbar decompression or lumbar fusion, the level at which 1) the likelihood that needing a repeat surgery within 3 to 5 years would change their mind about choosing the decompression operation and cause them to choose the fusion operation and then 2) the likelihood of needing a repeat surgery within 3 to 5 years that would be acceptable to them after the fusion operation. The distribution of patient responses was assessed with histograms and descriptive statistics., Results: Ninety patients were surveyed, and of these, 73 patients (81.1%) returned fully completed questionnaires. The median reoperation acceptance rates after a decompression was <60%, while the median acceptable revision rate when contemplating the fusion surgery was 10%., Conclusions: Patient acceptance for the potential need for revision surgery is higher when considering a decompression compared to a fusion operation. Reoperation risk rates along with the magnitude of the surgical intervention are important considerations in determining patients' surgical preferences. Understanding patient preferences and risk tolerances can aid clinicians in shared decision-making, potentially improving patient satisfaction and outcomes in the several lumbar pathologies which can be ameliorated with either decompression or fusion., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-TSJ disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery have high rates of preoperative opioid use, which is associated with inferior outcomes and higher risks for opioid dependency postoperatively., Purpose: Determine whether there are identifiable subgroups of patients that follow distinct patterns in pre- and postoperative opioid dosing. Examine how preoperative patterns in opioid dosing relate to postoperative opioid patterns, opioid cessation, and the risk for adverse events., Study Design/setting: Retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database (Meritive TM Marketscan® Research Databases 2007-2015)., Patient Sample: The 9,768 patients undergoing primary single level lumbar fusion., Outcome Measures: Primary: daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) opioid dosing calculated from prescriptions dispensed for 1 year before and after surgery; secondary: 90-day all-cause readmission and complications, 90-day acute postoperative pain, 90-day and 1-year reoperation, surgical costs, length of stay, and discharge disposition., Methods: Distinct patient subgroups defined by patterns of daily MME pre- and postoperatively were identified via group-based trajectory modeling. Associations between these groups and outcomes were assessed with multivariable logistic regression with risk adjustment for patient and surgical factors., Results: Among primary single level lumbar fusion patients, 59.5% filled an opioid prescription in the 3 months preceding surgery, whereas 40.5% were opioid naïve (Naïve). Five distinct subgroups of daily MME were identified among those filling opioids preoperatively: (1) Naïve to 3m (21.2% of patients): no opioids until 3 months preoperatively, escalating to 15 MME/day; (2) Low to 3m (11.4%): very low or as needed dose until 3 months preoperatively, escalating to 15 MME/day; (3) 6m Rise (6.9%): no opioids until 6 months preoperatively, escalating to >30 MME/day; (4) Medium (9.8%): increased linearly from 10 to 25 MME/day across the year before surgery; (5) High (10.0%): increased linearly from 60 to >80 MME/day across the year before surgery. These five preoperative opioid groups were related to postoperative opioids filled in a dose-response manner. The two preoperative patient groups with chronic Medium to High-dose opioid dosing were associated with increased adverse events, including all-cause readmission, reoperation, and pneumonia, whereas a low baseline group with a large, earlier preoperative rise in opioid dosing (6m Rise) had increased encounters for acute postoperative pain. Postoperatively, only 9.5% of patients did not fill an opioid prescription. Five distinct postoperative subgroups were identified based on their patterns in daily MME: Two groups ceased filling opioids within the year following surgery (33.6% of patients), and three groups declined in opioid dosage following surgery but plateaued at low (0-5 MME/day, 29.1%), medium (10-15 MME/day, 12.0%), or high (70-75 MME/day), 13.1%) doses by 1 year. Patients within the higher preoperative opioid groups were more likely to belong to the postoperative groups that were unable to cease filling opioids., Conclusions: Identification of a patient's preoperative time trend in daily opioid use may provide significant prognostic value and help guide pain management and risk reduction efforts., Level of Evidence: III., Competing Interests: Funding disclosure statement No financial support was procured for this study., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Understanding patient-specific trends in costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) surrounding lumbar spine surgery is critically needed to better inform surgical decision making and the development of targeted interventions., Purpose: 1) Identify subgroups of patients following distinct patterns in direct healthcare payments pre- and postoperatively, 2) determine whether these patterns are associated with patient and surgical factors, and 3) examine whether preoperative payment patterns are related to postoperative payments, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and adverse events., Study Design/setting: Retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database (IBM Marketscan Research Databases 2007-2015)., Patient Sample: Adults undergoing primary single-level decompression surgery for lumbar stenosis (n=12,394)., Outcome Measures: Direct healthcare payments, HCRU payments (15 categories), 90-day complications and all-cause readmission, 2-year reoperation METHODS: Group-based trajectory modeling is an application of finite mixture modeling that is able to identify meaningful subgroups within a population that follow distinct developmental trajectories over time. We used this technique to identify subgroups of patients following distinct profiles in preoperative direct healthcare payments. A separate analysis was performed to identify distinct profiles in payments postoperatively. Patient and surgical factors associated with these payment profiles were assessed with multinomial logistic regression, and associations with adverse events were assessed with risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression., Results: We identified 4 preoperative patient payment subgroups following distinct profiles in payments: Pre-Low (5.8% of patients), Pre-Early-Rising (4.8%), Pre-Medium (26.1%), and Pre-High (63.3%). Postoperatively, 3 patient subgroups were identified: Post-Low (8.9%), Post-Medium (29.6%), and Post-High (61.4%). Patients following the higher-cost pre- and postoperative payment profiles were older, more likely female, and had a greater physical and mental comorbidity burden. With each successively higher preoperative payment profile, patients were increasingly likely to have high postoperative payments, use more HCRU (particularly high-cost services such as inpatient admissions, ER, and SNF/IRF care), and experience postoperative adverse events. Following risk adjustment for patient and surgical factors, patients following the Pre-High payment profile had 209.5 (95% CI: 144.2, 309.7; p<.001) fold greater odds for following the Post-High payment profile, 1.8 (1.3, 2.5; p=.003) fold greater odds for 90-day complications, and 1.7 (1.2, 2.6; p=.035) fold greater odds for 2-year reoperation relative to patients following the Pre-Low payment profile., Conclusions: There are identifiable subgroups of patients who follow distinct profiles in direct healthcare payments surrounding lumbar decompression surgery. These payment profiles are related to patient age, sex, and physical and mental comorbidities. Notably, preoperative payment profiles may provide prognostic value, as they are associated with postoperative costs, HCRU, and adverse events., Level of Evidence: III., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Improved understanding of the pre- and postoperative trends in costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) is needed to better inform patient expectations and aid in the development of strategies to minimize the significant healthcare burden associated with lumbar spine surgery., Purpose: Examine the time course of costs and HCRU in the 2 years preceding and following elective lumbar spine surgery for stenosis in a large national claims cohort., Study Design/setting: Retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database (IBM® Marketscan® Research Databases 2007-2015)., Patient Sample: Adult patients undergoing elective primary single-level lumbar surgery for stenosis with at least 2 years of continuous health plan enrollment pre- and postoperatively., Outcome Measures: Functional measures, including monthly rates of HCRU (15 categories), monthly gross covered payments (including payments made by the health plan and deductibles and coinsurance paid by the patient) overall, by HCRU category, and by spine versus non-spine-related., Methods: All available patients were utilized for analysis of HCRU. For analysis of payments, only patients on noncapitated health plans providing accurate financial information were analyzed. Payments were converted to 2015 United States dollars using the medical care component of the consumer price index. Trends in payments and HCRU were plotted on a monthly basis pre- and post-surgery and assessed with regression models. Relationships with demographics, surgical factors, and comorbidities were assessed with multivariable repeated measures generalized estimating equations., Results: Median monthly healthcare payments 2 years prior to surgery were $275 ($22, $868). Baseline HCRU at 2 years preoperatively was stable or only gradually rising (office visits, prescription drug use), but began an increasingly steep rise in many categories 6 to 12 months prior to surgery. Monthly payments began an increasingly steep rise 6 months prior to surgery, reaching a peak of $1,402 ($634, $2,827) in the month prior to surgery. This was driven by an increase in radiology, office visits, PT, injections, prescription medications, ER encounters, and inpatient admissions. Payments dropped dramatically immediately following surgery. Over the remainder of the 2 years, the median total payments declined only slightly, as a continued decline in spine-related payments was offset by gradually increased non-spine related payments as patients aged. By 2 years postoperatively, the percentage of patients using PT and injections returned to within 1% of the baseline levels observed 2 years preoperatively; however, spine-related prescription medication use remained elevated, as did other categories of HCRU (radiology, office visits, lab/diagnostic services, and also rare events such as inpatient admissions, ER encounters, and SNF/IRF). Patients with a fusion component to their surgeries had higher payments and HCRU preoperatively, and this did not resolve postoperatively. Variations in payments and HCRU were also evident among plan types, with patients on comprehensive medical plans-predominantly employer-sponsored supplemental Medicare coverage-utilizing more inpatient, ER, and inpatient rehabilitation & skilled nursing facilities. Patients on high-deductible plans had fewer payments and HCRU across all categories; however, we are unable to distinguish whether this is because they used fewer of these services or if they were paying for these services out of pocket without submitting to the payer. By 2 years postoperatively, 51% of patients had no spine-related monthly payments, while 33% had higher and 16% had lower monthly payments relative to 2 years preoperatively., Conclusions: This is the first study to characterize time trends in direct healthcare payments and HCRU over an extended period preceding and following spine surgery. Differences among plan types potentially highlight disparities in access to care and plan-related financial mediators of patients' healthcare resource utilization., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Protein biomarkers associated with lumbar disc disease have been studied as diagnostic indicators and therapeutic targets. Recently, a cartilage degradation product, the fibronectin-aggrecan complex (FAC) identified in the epidural space, has been shown to predict response to lumbar epidural steroid injection in patients with radiculopathy from herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP)., Purpose: Determine the ability of FAC to predict response to microdiscectomy for patients with radiculopathy due to lumbar disc herniation STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single-center prospective consecutive cohort study., Patient Sample: Patients with radiculopathy from HNP with concordant symptoms to MRI who underwent microdiscectomy., Outcomes Measures: Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scores (VAS) were noted at baseline and at 3-month follow-up. Primary outcome of clinical improvement was defined as patients with both a decrease in VAS of at least 3 points and ODI >20 points., Methods: Intraoperative sampling was done via lavage of the excised fragment by ELISA for presence of FAC. Funding for the ELISA was provided by Cytonics, Inc., Results: Seventy-five patients had full complement of data and were included in this analysis. At 3-month follow-up, 57 (76%) patents were "better." There was a statistically significant association of the presence of FAC and clinical improvement (p=.017) with an 85% positive predictive value. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve plotting association of FAC and clinical improvement demonstrates an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.66±0.08 (p=.037). Subset analysis of those with weakness on physical examination (n=48) plotting the association of FAC and improvement shows AUC on ROC of 0.81±0.067 (p=.002)., Conclusions: Patients who are "FAC+" are more likely to demonstrate clinical improvement following microdiscectomy. The data suggest that the inflammatory milieu plays a significant role regarding improvement in patients undergoing discectomy for radiculopathy in lumbar HNP, even in those with preoperative weakness. The FAC represents a potential target for treatment in HNP., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Lumbosacral epidural steroid injections (ESIs) have increased dramatically despite a narrowing of the clinical indications for use. One potential indication is to avoid or delay surgery, yet little information exists regarding surgery rates after ESI., Purpose: The purpose of this research was to determine the proportion of patients having surgery after lumbar ESI for disc herniation or stenosis and to identify the timing and factors associated with this progression., Study Design/setting: This study was a retrospective review of nationally representative administrative claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan databases from 2007 to 2014., Patient Sample: The study cohort was comprised of 179,025 patients (54±15 years, 48% women) having lumbar ESIs for diagnoses of stenosis and/or herniation., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was the time from ESI to surgery., Methods: Inclusion criteria were ESI for stenosis and/or herniation, age ≥18 years, and health plan enrollment for 1 year before ESI to screen for exclusions. Patients were followed longitudinally until they progressed to surgery or had a lapse in enrollment, at which time they were censored. Rates of surgery were assessed with the Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Demographic and treatment factors associated with surgery were assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. No external funding was procured for this research and the authors' conflicts of interest are not pertinent to the present work., Results: Within 6 months, 12.5% of ESI patients underwent lumbar surgery. By 1 year, 16.9% had surgery, and by 5 years, 26.1% had surgery. Patients with herniation had surgery at rates of up to five-fold to seven-fold higher, with the highest rates of surgery in younger patients and those with both herniation and stenosis. Other concomitant spine diagnoses, male sex, previous tobacco use, and residence a rural areas or regions other than the Northeastern United States were associated with higher surgery rates. Medical comorbidities (previous treatment for drug use, congestive heart failure, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypercholesterolemia, and other cardiac complications) were associated with lower surgery rates., Conclusions: In the long term, more than one out of every four patients undergoing ESI for lumbar herniation or stenosis subsequently had surgery, and nearly one of six had surgery within the first year. After adjusting for other patient demographics and comorbidities, patients with herniation were more likely have surgery than those with stenosis. The improved understanding of the progression from lumbar ESI to surgery will help to better inform discussions regarding the value of ESI and aid in the shared decision-making process., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Prior studies have demonstrated the superiority of decompression and fusion over decompression alone for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. More recent studies have investigated whether nonfusion stabilization could provide durable clinical improvement after decompression and fusion., Purpose: To examine the clinical safety and effectiveness of decompression and implantation of a novel flexion restricting paraspinous tension band (PTB) for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis., Study Design: A prospective clinical study., Patient Sample: Forty-one patients (7 men and 34 women) aged 45 to 83 years (68.2 ± 9.0) were recruited with symptomatic spinal stenosis and Meyerding Grade 1 or 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L3-L4 (8) or L4-L5 (33)., Outcome Measures: Self-reported measures included visual analog scale (VAS) for leg, back, and hip pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Physiologic measures included quantitative and qualitative radiographic analysis performed by an independent core laboratory., Methods: Patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis were prospectively enrolled at four European spine centers with independent monitoring of data. Clinical and radiographic outcome data collected preoperatively were compared with data collected at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. This study was sponsored by the PTB manufacturer (Simpirica Spine, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA), including institutional research support grants to the participating centers totaling approximately US $172,000., Results: Statistically significant improvements and clinically important effect sizes were seen for all pain and disability measurements. At 24 months follow-up, ODI scores were reduced by an average of 25.4 points (59%) and maximum leg pain on VAS by 48.1 mm (65%). Back pain VAS scores improved from 54.1 by an average of 28.5 points (53%). There was one postoperative wound infection (2.4%) and an overall reoperation rate of 12%. Eighty-two percent patients available for 24 months follow-up with a PTB in situ had a reduction in ODI of greater than 15 points and 74% had a reduction in maximum leg pain VAS of greater than 20 mm. According to Odom criteria, most of these patients (82%) had an excellent or good outcome with all except one patient satisfied with surgery. As measured by the independent core laboratory, there was no significant increase in spondylolisthesis, segmental flexion-extension range of motion, or translation and no loss of lordosis in the patients with PTB at the 2 years follow-up., Conclusions: Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis treated with decompression and PTB demonstrated no progressive instability at 2 years follow-up. Excellent/good outcomes and significant improvements in patient-reported pain and disability scores were still observed at 2 years, with no evidence of implant failure or migration. Further study of this treatment method is warranted to validate these findings., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background Context: There is mounting evidence that the currently available techniques for the diagnosis of discogenic low back pain are insufficiently accurate-this may explain some of the variability in outcomes of surgery for this important clinical problem. New diagnostic methods are needed to address this diagnostic issue; improvements here may do as much to improve overall patient outcomes as improvements in surgical treatment methods., Purpose: To compare the results of standard pressure-controlled provocative discography (PD) to those of the functional anesthetic discogram (FAD) in a series of patients presenting with chronic low back pain and considering surgical treatment., Study Design: Prospective clinical series in an academic spinal surgical practice., Patient Sample: Fifty-two patients presenting with chronic low back pain; mean age 45 years (range, 24-70 years); 28 women, 24 men; and 25% in workman's compensation program., Outcome Measures: Oswestry, visual analog scale for back pain, distress and risk assessment method psychometric analysis, demographic data, magnetic resonance imaging scan of lumbar spine. During provocative discogram: pressurization at pain, pain level, and concordancy. During FAD: position or activity used to elicit typical pain, baseline pain level before injection, during injection, at 5, 10, and 20 minutes after the injection, and substance injected., Methods: Standard pressure-controlled PD was performed, followed by (in positive cases or in patients with clinical features and imaging studies felt to be highly suggestive of symptomatic disc degeneration) the FAD test-an assessment of the response to injection of a low dose of local anesthetic into the disc during a position productive of the patient's typical pain., Results: Discordant results of the two tests were noted in 46% of the patients in the series. Of them, 26% of patients with positive PD had negative findings on the FAD test; 16% had positive findings at a single level only, whereas the provocative discogram had been positive at two or more levels; 4% had new positive findings on the FAD test., Conclusions: We have presented the results of a new diagnostic technique in 52 patients with chronic low back pain presumed discogenic in origin that was designed to help differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic disc degeneration. The findings of the test differed from those of standard pressure-controlled PD in 46% of the cases reported on here. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical utility of the test., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Interspinous process devices represent an emerging treatment for neurogenic intermittent claudication resulting from lumbar spinal stenosis. Most published descriptions of the operative technique involve treatment of patients in the modified lateral decubitus knee-chest position (modified lateral decubitus), and yet many surgeons have begun to perform the procedure in various prone positions. The patient's positioning on the operating room table seems likely to influence resting interspinous distance, and thus implant sizing and possibly the risk of intraoperative spinous process fracture. The intersegmental lumbar effect of variants on operative prone positioning compared with the modified lateral decubitus position has not been studied., Purpose: We performed this study to determine the comparative differences in interspinous distance and intersegmental angulation effected by the lateral decubitus knee-chest position and the variants on prone positioning used in practice., Study Design/setting: Experimental human radiographic study., Patient Sample: Twenty healthy male volunteers with a mean age of 43.6+/-10.8 years (range, 24-63), without chronic back pain, symptoms of neurogenic claudication, or history of lumbar surgery were enrolled., Outcome Measures: Interspinous distance, anterior and posterior disc heights, disc angulation were measured on PACS monitor., Methods: Lateral X-rays were taken of the lower lumbar spine in each of four different surgical positions (modified lateral decubitus, Andrews frame, Wilson frame, and Jackson frame). Statistical analysis was performed on the resultant data points to assess the significance of the effect of the position of the subject on intersegmental spacing and angulation., Results: The 20 enrollees had a mean age of 43.6+/-10.8 years (range, 24-63). The mean interspinous distance at the L4-L5 level was greatest on the Andrews table (23.5+/-8.3mm) followed by the modified lateral decubitus position (19.6+/-5.1mm), the Wilson frame (15.6+/-4.6mm), and then the Jackson frame (10.1+/-4.7mm; significantly less than all other positions p< or =.036). Mean segmental extension at the L4-L5 level was least in the modified lateral decubitus position (-0.1 degrees +/-2.9 degrees ); this was statistically similar to extension on the Andrews table (1.5 degrees +/-4.7 degrees , p=1.0), but significantly less than that recorded on the Wilson frame (4.6 degrees +/-3.1 degrees , p<.001), and also significantly less than that recorded on the Jackson frame (p< or =.001). Similar differences in segmental measurements were observed at L3-L4., Conclusions: Prone positioning of patients in flexion on the operating table using the Andrews table or Wilson frame resulted in similar lumbar interspinous distance compared with the modified lateral decubitus position. Prone positioning on the Jackson frame resulted in statistically less interspinous distance than all other positions. Positioning on the Andrews table resulted in similar segmental angulation to the modified lateral decubitus position. Extrapolation from these data, obtained in healthy males younger than the typical age of patients treated with interspinous distraction devices, should clearly be done with caution. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that performing these procedures in the prone position using the Andrews table (greatest interspinous distance) is unlikely to result in the placement of significantly undersized implants, or significantly increase the force required to insert an implant.

Background Context: A range of morphologic and psychosocial variables has been suggested as risk factors for serious low back pain (LBP) illness. Although the relative contributions of structural and psychosocial variables are intensely debated, the validity of differing hypotheses has proven difficult to test because the incidence of serious disabling LBP illness is low in healthy subjects. These factors dictate the requirement for large sample sizes, extensive structural imaging and extended longitudinal study. Previous studies included either small cohorts with intensive imaging testing or large population studies that do not establish a detailed morphologic baseline., Purpose: To establish, using a strict patient sample design, the relative contribution of structural and psychosocial determinants of serious LBP illness among subjects with no previous LBP disability or clinical LBP illness., Study Design/setting: A prospective, longitudinal study of subjects with high risk factors for serious LBP as determined by structural and psychosocial characteristics., Patient Sample: One hundred subjects with known mild persistent low back pain and a 2:1 ratio of chronic (non-lumbar) pain syndrome were recruited from a study population with a predisposition to disc degenerative disease, to undergo baseline examination, testing and 5-year follow-up., Outcome Measures: Observations were made at 6-month intervals over 4 to 6 years (mean, 5.3) for the after primary outcomes measures: episodes of serious back pain (visual analogue scale [VAS] > or =6), episodes of occupational disability less than 1 week, episodes of occupational disability for 1 week, remission episodes of all back pain symptoms at least 6 months and medical visits primarily for LBP evaluation and treatment., Methods: Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lumbar provocative discography (in psychometrically normal subjects), physical examinations, medical and work histories and psychometric testing were performed at baseline. Imaging and psychometric testing were graded by blinded examiners. A scripted interview was conducted every 6 months during follow-up by independent research assistants who also were blinded to patient baseline data. The interview covered interval medical, occupational and accident or injury histories., Results: Psychosocial variables strongly predicted both long- and short-term disability events, duration and health-care visits for LBP problems (p<0.0001-0.004). The likelihood of a sustained remission from the baseline persistent (subclinical) LBP appeared to be linked to occupation factors (leaving a heavy labor occupation; p=0.0001), neurophysiologic variables (chronic nonlumbar pain; p=0.0002) and psychometric profiles at baseline (DRAM and FABQ-PA; p=0.003-0.002). Of the structural findings measured only moderate or severe Modic changes of the vertebral end plate were weakly associated with an adverse outcome. A positive provocative discogram at baseline did not predict any future adverse event., Conclusion: The development of serious LBP disability in a cohort of subjects with both structural and psychosocial risk factors was strongly predicted by baseline psychosocial variables. Structural variables on both MRI and discography testing at baseline had only weak association with back pain episodes and no association with disability or future medical care.

Background Context: Whether discographic injections would be positive in subjects with benign persistent "backache" who are not seeking treatment is unknown. This information is important, because benign backache undoubtedly co-exists in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) illness that is not discogenicin origin. If these subjects had a high rate of positive discography, the high background incidence of common backache would allow many positive tests in patients in whom discogenic processes were unrelated to their severe CLBP illness. Conversely, if subjects with benign low back pain rarely if ever had significant concordant pain reproduction on disc injections, the basic tenet of discographic diagnosis would be strengthened., Purpose: To compare, using a strict experimental design, the relative pain and concordancy response to provocative discography in subjects with clinically insignificant "backache" and clinical subjects with CLBP illness considering surgical treatment., Study Design: Comparison of experimental disc injections in subjects with persistent mild backache and those with chronic low back pain (CLBP) illness., Patient Sample: Twenty-five subjects with mild persistent low back pain (LBP) were recruited for an experimental discography study. Subjects were recruited from a clinical study of patients having had cervical spine surgery. Inclusion criteria required that subjects not be receiving or seeking medical treatment for LBP, be taking no medications for backache, have no activity restrictions because of LBP, and have normal psychometric scores. To more closely approximate the pain behavior in CLBP illness, 50% (12) of the "backache" group were recruited with a chronic painful condition (neck/shoulder) unrelated to the low back. CLBP subjects, patients coming to discography for consideration of surgical treatment, were used as control subjects., Outcome Measures: Results of discography were determined using the criteria of Walsh et al.: pain response of 3 or greater, two or more pain behaviors, a negative "control" discographic injection, and a similar or exact concordancy rating., Methods: Discography was performed on experimental subjects and control patients. Experienced raters, who were blinded to control versus experimental status of the subjects, scored the magnetic resonance image, discogram, psychometric tests and discography videotapes of the subjects' pain behavior., Results: Thirteen of 25 volunteer subjects had pain rated as "bad" or worse with disc injection. There were 12 painful and fully concordant disc injections in 9 of these 25 "backache" subjects (36%). These injections met all the Walsh et al. criteria for a positive diagnosis of discogenic pain. All positive discs had annular disruption to or through the outer annulus. Of the 9 subjects with positive discograms, 3 had no chronic pain states and 6 did. All subjects with positive injections had negative control discs. In comparison, in 52 subjects with CLBP illness 38 (73%) had at least one positive disc injection., Conclusions: In a group of volunteer subjects with persistent "backache," 36% were found to have significant pain on disc injection, which is reported to be concordant with their usual pain. The presence of positive concordant pain responses and negative control discs in 33% of subjects without CLBP illness seriously challenges the specificity of provocative discography in identifying a clinically relevant spinal pathology.

Background Context: Discography is used today as the basis of the diagnosis of discogenic back and neck pain. As such, it plays a pivotal role in the formulation of treatment plans for patients complaining of chronic axial spine pain., Purpose: A brief history of discography is described here, followed by a discussion of the current uses of discography, the technique involved, and recent studies questioning its validity., Study Design/setting: A selective review of discography articles from peer-reviewed literature from 1967 to 2000 is provided. We included articles analyzing the validity of discography as well as those concerning its proper use, technique, and complications., Methods: Articles relevant to the subject of discography were systematically reviewed for recommendations regarding technique, the interpretation of results, and conclusions regarding its validity., Results: The specificity of discography is dramatically affected by the characteristics of the patient examined. In a patient with chronic pain states and psychiatric risk factors, the specificity was determined to be at most 20%. In healthy patients with no chronic pain states and a normal psychiatric profile, the specificity was found to be at most 90%. The ability of a patient to determine reliably the concordance of pain provoked during discography is poor. We could find no data addressing the sensitivity of the study., Conclusions: Clinicians who use discography to determine treatment pathways for their patients need to critically examine the validity of the test. Recent studies examining the specificity of discography have led us to proceed much more cautiously in interpreting the results of discography.