| Literature DB >> 24980583 |
Jason C Eck1, Alok Sharan, Daniel K Resnick, William C Watters, Zoher Ghogawala, Andrew T Dailey, Praveen V Mummaneni, Michael W Groff, Jeffrey C Wang, Tanvir F Choudhri, Sanjay S Dhall, Michael G Kaiser.
Abstract
Identifying the etiology of pain for patients suffering from chronic low-back pain remains problematic. Noninvasive imaging modalities, used in isolation, have not consistently provided sufficient evidence to support performance of a lumbar fusion. Provocative testing has been used as an adjunct in this assessment, either alone or in combination with other modalities, to enhance the diagnostic capabilities when evaluating patients with low-back pain. There have been a limited number of studies investigating this topic since the publication of the original guidelines. Based primarily on retrospective studies, discography, as a stand-alone test, is not recommended to formulate treatment strategies for patients with low-back pain. A single randomized cohort study demonstrated an improved potential of discoblock over discography as a predictor of success following lumbar fusion. It is therefore recommended that discoblock be considered as a diagnostic option. There is a possibility, based on a matched cohort study, that an association exists between progression of degenerative disc disease and the performance of a provocative discogram. It is therefore recommended that patients be counseled regarding this potential development prior to undergoing discography.Entities:
Keywords: AAOS = American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association; MODEMS = Musculoskeletal Outcomes Data Evaluation and Management System; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; VAS = visual analog scale; discoblock; discography; fusion; lumbar spine; practice guidelines
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24980583 DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurosurg Spine ISSN: 1547-5646