Search

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing amongst available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to chronic low back pain, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Background Context: In a small prospective study assessing 10 symptomatic and 10 asymptomatic subjects, Schellhas et al. compared cervical discography to magnetic resonance imaging. Within that study he reported on the distribution of pain for the C3-C4 to C6-C7 levels. Four years later, Grubb and Ellis reported retrospective data from his 12-year experience using cervical discography from C2-C3 to C7-T1 in 173 patients. To date, no large prospective study defining pain referral patterns for each cervical disc has been performed., Purpose: To conduct a prospective visual and statistical descriptive study of pain provocation of a cohort of subjects undergoing cervical discography., Study Design/setting: Prospective multicenter descriptive study., Methods: Pain referral maps were generated for each disc level from patients undergoing cervical discography with at least two levels assessed. If concordant pain was reproduced in a morphologically abnormal disc, the subject immediately completed a pain diagram. An independent observer interviewed the subject and recorded the location of provoked symptoms. Visual data were compiled using a body sector bit map, which consisted of 48 clinically relevant body regions. Visual maps with graduated color codes and frequencies of symptom location at each cervical disc level were generated., Results: A total of 101 symptom provocation maps were recorded during cervical discography on 41 subjects. There were 10 at C2-C3, 19 at C3-C4, 27 at C4-C5, 27 at C5-C6, 16 at C6-C7 and 2 at C7-T1. Predominantly unilateral symptoms were provoked just as often as bilateral symptoms. The C2-C3 disc referred pain to the neck, subocciput and face. The C3-C4 disc referred pain to the neck, subocciput, trapezius, anterior neck, face, shoulder, interscapular and limb. The C4-C5 disc referred pain to the neck, shoulder, interscapular, trapezius, extremity, face, chest and subocciput. The C5-C6 disc referred pain to the neck, trapezius, interscapular, suboccipital, anterior neck, chest and face. The C6-C7 disc referred pain to the neck, interscapular, trapezius, shoulder, extremity and subocciput. At C7-T1 we produced neck and interscapular pain. Visual maps with graduated color codes and frequencies of symptom location at each cervical disc level were generated., Conclusions: In conclusion, these results confirm the observations of prior investigators that cervical internal disc disruption can elicit axial and peripheral symptoms. The particular patterns of pain generation allow the discographer to preprocedurally anticipate disc levels to assess. With these data, the number of disc punctures that are required can be limited rather than routinely assessing all cervical discs.

Background Context: Lumbar zygapophysial joints are currently believed to be a cause of axial low back pain. Once this diagnosis is made, decisions about when to institute a particular intervention and which treatment to offer is regionally and specialty dependent., Purpose: To perform a critical review of prior published studies assessing the use of interventional treatment options for the treatment of lumbar zygapophysial joint syndrome., Study Design: Evidence-based medicine analysis of current literature., Methods: A database search of Medline (PubMed, Ovid and MDConsult), Embase and the Cochrane database was conducted. The keywords used were low back pain, lumbar zygapophysial joint, lumbar facet joint, radiofrequency denervation, medial branch block, and intraarticular injection. After identifying all relevant literature, each article was reviewed. Data from the following categories were compiled: inclusion criteria, randomization of subjects, total number of subjects involved at enrollment and at final analysis. statistical analysis used, intervention performed, outcome measures, follow-up intervals and results. Guidelines described by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research were then applied to these data., Results: This review determined that the evidence for the treatment of lumbar zygapophysial joint syndrome with intraarticular injections should be rated as level III (moderate) to IV (limited) evidence, whereas that for radiofrequency denervation is at a level III., Conclusions: Current studies fail to give more than sparse evidence to support the use of interventional techniques in the treatment of lumbar zygapophysial joint-mediated low back pain. This review emphasizes the need for larger, prospective, randomized controlled trials with uniform inclusion and exclusion criteria, standardized treatment, uniform outcome measures and an adequate duration of follow-up period so that definitive recommendations for the treatment of lumbar zygapophysial joint-mediated pain can be made.

Background Context: Perineural cysts are commonly found in the sacral region and are incidently discovered on imaging studies performed for the evaluation of low back and/or leg pain., Purpose: To report on a patient presenting with abdominal pain secondary to a large sacral perineural cyst., Study Design/setting: Case report. METHODS/PATIENT SAMPLE: A 47-year-old woman was referred to a specialized multidisciplinary spine center with complaints of left lower quadrant abdominal pain and left leg pain. Of significant note was the presence of constipation and urinary frequency over the preceding 8 months. Physical examination was normal. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbosacral spine revealed large perineural cysts eroding the sacrum and extending to the pelvis. The presence of abdominal symptoms prompted a neurosurgical consultation. However, after considering the possible risks associated with the surgical procedure, the patient opted to follow the nonsurgical route., Result and Conclusions: Although commonly visualized, sacral perineural cysts are rarely symptomatic. When symptomatic, it may be secondary to its size and location. Presence of abdominal pain in a patient with back and/or leg pain should prompt the evaluation of the lumbosacral spine.