-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a debilitating condition associated with degeneration of the spine with aging. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a debilitating condition associated with degeneration of the spine with aging.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of surgery compared with different types of non-surgical interventions in adults with symptomatic LSS. Primary outcomes included quality of life, disability, function and pain. Also, to consider complication rates and side effects, and to evaluate short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes (six months, six months to two years, five years or longer).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registries up to February 2015. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings related to treatment of the spine.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical versus non-operative treatments in participants with lumbar spinal stenosis confirmed by clinical and imaging findings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For data collection and analysis, we followed methods guidelines of the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group (Furlan 2009) and those provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).
MAIN RESULTS
From the 12,966 citations screened, we assessed 26 full-text articles and included five RCTs (643 participants).Low-quality evidence from the meta-analysis performed on two trials using the Oswestry Disability Index (pain-related disability) to compare direct decompression with or without fusion versus multi-modal non-operative care showed no significant differences at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.12 to 2.80) and at one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66). At 24 months, significant differences favoured decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). Low-quality evidence from one small study revealed no difference in pain outcomes between decompression and usual conservative care (bracing and exercise) at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.59), four years (RR 7.50, 95% CI 1.00 to 56.48) and 10 years (RR 4.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 17.58).Low-quality evidence from one small study suggested no differences at six weeks in the Oswestry Disability Index for patients treated with minimally invasive mild decompression versus those treated with epidural steroid injections (MD 5.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.83; 38 participants). Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) results were better for epidural injection at six weeks (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.28), and visual analogue scale (VAS) improvements were better in the mild decompression group (MD 2.40, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.88). At 12 weeks, many cross-overs prevented further analysis.Low-quality evidence from a single study including 191 participants favoured the interspinous spacer versus usual conservative treatment at six weeks, six months and one year for symptom severity and physical function.All remaining studies reported complications associated with surgery and conservative side effects of treatment: Two studies reported no major complications in the surgical group, and the other study reported complications in 10% and 24% of participants, including spinous process fracture, coronary ischaemia, respiratory distress, haematoma, stroke, risk of reoperation and death due to pulmonary oedema.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have very little confidence to conclude whether surgical treatment or a conservative approach is better for lumbar spinal stenosis, and we can provide no new recommendations to guide clinical practice. However, it should be noted that the rate of side effects ranged from 10% to 24% in surgical cases, and no side effects were reported for any conservative treatment. No clear benefits were observed with surgery versus non-surgical treatment. These findings suggest that clinicians should be very careful in informing patients about possible treatment options, especially given that conservative treatment options have resulted in no reported side effects. High-quality research is needed to compare surgical versus conservative care for individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Topics: Aged; Braces; Decompression, Surgical; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Laminectomy; Lumbosacral Region; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Cord Compression; Spinal Fusion; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 26824399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010264.pub2 -
Pain Physician 2016Lumbar muscle dysfunction due to pain might be related to altered lumbar muscle structure. Macroscopically, muscle degeneration in low back pain (LBP) is characterized... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbar muscle dysfunction due to pain might be related to altered lumbar muscle structure. Macroscopically, muscle degeneration in low back pain (LBP) is characterized by a decrease in cross-sectional area and an increase in fat infiltration in the lumbar paraspinal muscles. In addition microscopic changes, such as changes in fiber distribution, might occur. Inconsistencies in results from different studies make it difficult to draw firm conclusions on which structural changes are present in the different types of non-specific LBP. Insights regarding structural muscle alterations in LBP are, however, important for prevention and treatment of non-specific LBP.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this article is to review which macro- and/or microscopic structural alterations of the lumbar muscles occur in case of non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP), recurrent low back pain (RLBP), and acute low back pain (ALBP).
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING
All selected studies were case-control studies.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed and Web of Science. Only full texts of original studies regarding structural alterations (atrophy, fat infiltration, and fiber type distribution) in lumbar muscles of patients with non-specific LBP compared to healthy controls were included. All included articles were scored on methodological quality.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were found eligible after screening title, abstract, and full text for inclusion and exclusion criteria. In CLBP, moderate evidence of atrophy was found in the multifidus; whereas, results in the paraspinal and the erector spinae muscle remain inconclusive. Also moderate evidence occurred in RLBP and ALBP, where no atrophy was shown in any lumbar muscle. Conflicting results were seen in undefined LBP groups. Results concerning fat infiltration were inconsistent in CLBP. On the other hand, there is moderate evidence in RLBP that fat infiltration does not occur, although a larger muscle fat index was found in the erector spinae, multifidus, and paraspinal muscles, reflecting an increased relative amount of intramuscular lipids in RLBP. However, no studies were found investigating fat infiltration in ALBP. Restricted evidence indicates no abnormalities in fiber type in the paraspinal muscles in CLBP. No studies have examined fiber type in ALBP and RLBP.
LIMITATIONS
Lack of clarity concerning patient definitions, exact LBP symptoms, and applied methods.
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate atrophy in CLBP in the multifidus and paraspinal muscles but not in the erector spinae. No atrophy was shown in RLBP and ALBP. Fat infiltration did not occur in RLBP, but results in CLBP were inconsistent. No abnormalities in fiber type in the paraspinal muscles were found in CLBP.
KEY WORDS
Low back pain, non-specific, chronic, recurrent, acute, muscle structure, fat infiltration, cross-sectional area, fiber type, review.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae; Lumbosacral Region; Muscle, Skeletal; Paraspinal Muscles
PubMed: 27676689
DOI: No ID Found -
European Review For Medical and... Apr 2019This systematic review focuses on 5 key elements that may improve the decision-making process in spondylodiscitis: the infective agent, segmental instability, abscess...
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review focuses on 5 key elements that may improve the decision-making process in spondylodiscitis: the infective agent, segmental instability, abscess development, neurological compromise and focus of infection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We included 64 studies published between May 2012 and May 2017, that reported both a description of the discitis and comparative data regarding the disease and its complications.
RESULTS
The majority of cases were caused by Staphylococcus spp (40.3%) and involved the lumbosacral region (52.3%). 27.8% of cases were associated to neurological compromise, 30.4% developed an abscess, 6.6% were associated to instability, and 54.7% underwent surgery. The abscesses mostly involved the lumbosacral region (60.4%) with paravertebral localization; 32.6% of cases involved the thoracic region, showing mostly epidural localization; a small number of cases (7%) involved the cervical region, mostly with epidural localization. 95% of paravertebral abscesses were treated percutaneously, while 85.7% of epidural cases underwent "open" surgery. Spinal cord compression mainly occurred in the cervical region (55.9%), neurological deficit was observed in over half of cases (65%), and surgery was required in most of the cases (83.9%). The majority of cases of instability involved the lumbosacral region (53.3%) and underwent surgery (87%). The focus of infection was mostly lumbosacral (61%) and almost all cases (95%) were treated surgically.
CONCLUSIONS
Spondylodiscitis is a complex and multifactorial disease, whose diagnosis and management are still challenging. Due to its potential morbidity, it is extremely important to investigate the 5 key elements discussed in this paper in order to provide an early diagnosis and initiate the most effective treatment.
Topics: Decision Making; Discitis; Humans
PubMed: 30977878
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_201904_17481 -
Medicine Jan 2016Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) is a common complication following primary discectomy. This systematic review aimed to investigate the current evidence on risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) is a common complication following primary discectomy. This systematic review aimed to investigate the current evidence on risk factors for rLDH.Cohort or case-control studies addressing risk factors for rLDH were identified by search in Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception to June 2015. Relevant results were pooled to give overall estimates if possible. Heterogeneity among studies was examined and publication bias was also assessed.A total of 17 studies were included in this systematic review. Risk factors that had significant relation with rLDH were smoking (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.53-2.58), disc protrusion (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.15-2.79), and diabetes (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.32). Gender, BMI, occupational work, level, and side of herniation did not correlate with rLDH significantly.Based on current evidence, smoking, disc protrusion, and diabetes were predictors for rLDH. Patients with these risk factors should be paid more attention for prevention of recurrence after primary surgery. More evidence provided by high-quality observational studies is still needed to further investigate risk factors for rLDH.
Topics: Age Factors; Body Mass Index; Diabetes Complications; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 26765413
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002378 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Lumbosacral Region; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sciatica
PubMed: 32271952
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013577 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2018We aim to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (index test) compared to surgery (reference test) for identifying lumbar disc herniation...
MAIN TEXT
We aim to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (index test) compared to surgery (reference test) for identifying lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in adult patients.For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (June 2017) for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for LDH in adult patients with low back pain and surgery as the reference standard. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate analysis, generated linked ROC plots in case of direct comparison of diagnostic imaging tests and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE-approach.We found 14 studies, all but one done before 1995, including 940 patients. Nine studies investigated Computed Tomography (CT), eight myelography and six Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The prior probability of LDH varied from 48.6 to 98.7%. The summary estimates for MRI and myelography were comparable with CT (sensitivity: 81.3% (95%CI 72.3-87.7%) and specificity: 77.1% (95%CI 61.9-87.5%)). The quality of evidence was moderate to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
The diagnostic accuracy of CT, myelography and MRI of today is unknown, as we found no studies evaluating today's more advanced imaging techniques. Concerning the older techniques we found moderate diagnostic accuracy for all CT, myelography and MRI, indicating a large proportion of false positives and negatives.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Low Back Pain; Lumbosacral Region; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Myelography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sciatica; Tomography Scanners, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 30151119
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-018-0207-x -
Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2022Lumbopelvic kinematics has been observed to include different parameters and directly relate to the movement of the hip spine. In the current scenario, more than 65... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbopelvic kinematics has been observed to include different parameters and directly relate to the movement of the hip spine. In the current scenario, more than 65 million people have been suffering from spinal pain, and 18% of adults experience chronic spinal pain.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis selected 9 studies for analysis via electronic databases like EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane (CENTRAL). After collecting the data, the dataset has been systematically analyzed through statistical methodologies using RevMan and Stata.
RESULTS
Out of 116 studies initially scrutinized, nine were finally selected for the meta-analysis. When range of motion was studied via meta-analysis, it was noted that a considerable reduced movement was noted in the lumbar region of the spine when people were suffering from lower back pain in comparison to control group people. Hence, reduced lumbar range of motion, no difference in the angle of lordosis, and no significant difference in extension and rotation in people with lower back pain were found. However, variability was noted in people suffering from lower back pain for flexion and lateral flexion. A significant heterogeneity was found between the studies which lacked some details and standardization of the criteria which were used for defining patients with lower back pain or without them (control group). Results show that spinal pain is the main reason behind the limitation of lumbar range of motion. It is clear from the data set of mean and standard deviation, and this is clear to establish the relationship between the causes of pelvic and spinal pain. In flexion-based ROM, the mean difference was found to be -9.77 (95% CI: -21.86, 2.32). Similarly, for lateral flexion, the mean difference was found to be -5.58 (with 95% CI: -10.38, -0.79).
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that spinal disease is too influential for people; thereby, it affects day-to-day life activities by creating painful and restricted movements. It is concluded that people suffering from lower back pain have reduced proprioception and range of movement in the lumbar region when compared to control groups with no lower back pain, which mainly focus on flexion and lateral flexion.
Topics: Adult; Biomechanical Phenomena; Humans; Low Back Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae; Lumbosacral Region; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 35345658
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7369242 -
Asian Spine Journal Dec 2022Lumbar spinal steroid injections (LSSI) are universally used as preferred diagnostic or therapeutic treatment options before major spinal surgeries. Some recent studies...
Lumbar spinal steroid injections (LSSI) are universally used as preferred diagnostic or therapeutic treatment options before major spinal surgeries. Some recent studies have reported higher risks of surgical-site infection (SSI) for spinal surgeries performed after injections, while others have overlooked such associations. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the associations between preoperative LSSI and postoperative infection following subsequent lumbar decompression and fusion procedures. Three databases, namely PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, were searched for relevant studies that reported the association of spinal surgery SSI with spinal injections. After the comprehensive sequential screening of the titles, abstracts, and full articles, nine studies were included in a systematic review, and eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Studies were critically appraised for bias using the validated MINOR (methodological index for non-randomized studies) score. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the time between LSSI and surgery and the type of lumbar spine surgery. Meta-analysis showed that preoperative LSSI within 30 days of lumbar spine surgery was associated with significantly higher postoperative infection compared with the control group (OR,1.79; 95% CI, 1.08-2.96). Based on subgroup analysis, lumbar spine fusion surgery within 30 days of preoperative LSSI was associated with significantly high-infection rates (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.12-3.35), while no association was found between preoperative LSSI and postoperative infection for lumbar spine decompression surgeries. In summary, given the absence of high-level studies in the literature, careful clinical interpretation of the results should be performed. The overall risk of SSI was slightly higher if the spinal surgery was performed within 30 days after LSSIs. The risk was higher for lumbar fusion cases but not for decompression-only procedures.
PubMed: 35249315
DOI: 10.31616/asj.2021.0164 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2022Modic changes (MCs) are believed to be potential pain generators in the lumbar and cervical spine, but it is currently unclear if their presence affects postsurgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Modic changes (MCs) are believed to be potential pain generators in the lumbar and cervical spine, but it is currently unclear if their presence affects postsurgical outcomes. We performed a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies evaluating cervical or lumbar spine postsurgical outcomes in patients with documented preoperative MCs were included. A total of 29 studies and 6013 patients with 2688 of those patients having preoperative MCs were included. Eight included studies evaluated cervical spine surgery, eleven evaluated lumbar discectomies, nine studied lumbar fusion surgery, and three assessed lumbar disc replacements. The presence of cervical MCs did not impact the clinical outcomes in the cervical spine procedures. Moreover, most studies found that MCs did not significantly impact the clinical outcomes following lumbar fusion, lumbar discectomy, or lumbar disc replacement. A meta-analysis of the relevant data found no significant association between MCs and VAS back pain or ODI following lumbar discectomy. Similarly, there was no association between MCs and JOA or neck pain following ACDF procedures. Patients with MC experienced statistically significant improvements following lumbar or cervical spine surgery. The postoperative improvements were similar to patients without MCs in the cervical and lumbar spine.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Lumbosacral Region; Neck Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36011795
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610158 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Oct 2023This study aimed to investigate the correlation between the MRI high-intensity zone (HIZ) and the pathogenesis of discogenic low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to investigate the correlation between the MRI high-intensity zone (HIZ) and the pathogenesis of discogenic low back pain.
METHODS
Literature from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, China Knowledge Network, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database was searched until August 2023. Cohort studies including patients with low back pain who underwent lumbar spine MRI and discography, as well as the results evaluating the correlation between HIZ and discography for morphological changes in the disc and pain replication phenomena, were included in the analysis. The literature that met the inclusion criteria was screened, and the methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. Meta-analysis of the extracted data was performed by using RevMan 5.1.1.
RESULTS
In total, 28 reports were included in this meta-analysis. There was a statistically significant correlation between a positive HIZ and abnormal disc morphology in discography (OR 28.15, 95% CI [7.38, 107.46], p < 0.00001). Patients with HIZ-positive discs had a significantly higher incidence of consistent pain (71.0%, 969/1365) than those with HIZ-negative imaging (29.0%, 1314/4524) (OR 7.71, 95% CI [5.29, 11.23], p < 0.00001).Segments that were HIZ-positive and had abnormal disc morphology had a higher incidence of consistent pain (86.1%, 230/267) than HIZ-negative subjects (32.2%, 75/233) (OR 14.09, 95% CI [2.12, 93.48], p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
A positive MRI T2-weighted image of the lumbar disc with HIZ indicates disc degeneration. In addition, HIZ may be a specific indicator for the physical diagnosis of discogenic low back pain. A more advanced degree of disc degeneration on the basis of HIZ positivity corresponded to a greater probability of discography-induced consistent pain, whereas the degree of disc degeneration on the basis of HIZ negativity was less correlated with contrast-induced consistent pain.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Intervertebral Disc; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Lumbosacral Region; Lumbar Vertebrae; Intervertebral Disc Displacement
PubMed: 37805519
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04187-5