RESULTS The results of this review confirm and help quantify the significant differences that existed in the terminology and all the areas of diagnosis and treatment of presumed discogenic pain .
Our findings show that suspected discogenic pain , despite its extensive affirmation in the literature and enormous re sources regularly devoted to it , currently lacks clear diagnostic criteria and uniform treatment or terminology
BACKGROUND CONTEXT Pain innate to intervertebral disc , often referred to as discogenic pain , is suspected by some authors to be the major source of chronic low back and neck pain .
Current management of suspected discogenic pain lacks st and ardized diagnosis , treatment , and terminology .
PURPOSE In an attempt to determine whether patterns existed that may facilitate st and ardization of care , we sought to analyze the terminologies used and the various modes of diagnosis and treatment of suspected discogenic pain .
SB Charité disc replacement: report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center.
Sixty patients with one-level discogenic pain confirmed by plain radiography , magnetic resonance imaging , and provocative discography for degenerative disc disease were r and omized : one-third BAK anterior interbody fusion and two-thirds anterior SB Charité artificial disc replacement . The mean age was 40.3 years ( range 21 - 56 years ) . Nineteen cases were at L4-L5 and 41 cases were at L5-S1 . Nineteen cases had BAK anterior interbody fusion and 41 cases were r and omized as SB Charité disc replacement . The length of surgery was mean 88.4 minutes ( range 54 - 137 minutes ) for both groups . The estimated blood loss was mean 289.5 mL ( range 50 - 1800 mL ) . The length of hospital stay was a mean of 3.03 days ( range 2 - 6 days ) . Oswestry Disability Index scores for the SB Charité disc ( aggregate study group ) were 50.0 + /- 14.3 preoperatively and 25.0 + /- 20.1 at 1 - 3 years ' follow-up ( P < 0.001 ) . This is the first study that shows improvement of functional outcome measures in a prospect i ve r and omized design with disc arthroplasty treating primarily mechanical back pain and achieving comparable successful results to lumbar fusion-interbody fusion cage and BMP or interbody autograft and pedicle screw instrumentation
RESULTS The results of this review confirm and help quantify the significant differences that existed in the terminology and all the areas of diagnosis and treatment of presumed discogenic pain .
Our findings show that suspected discogenic pain , despite its extensive affirmation in the literature and enormous re sources regularly devoted to it , currently lacks clear diagnostic criteria and uniform treatment or terminology
BACKGROUND CONTEXT Pain innate to intervertebral disc , often referred to as discogenic pain , is suspected by some authors to be the major source of chronic low back and neck pain .
Current management of suspected discogenic pain lacks st and ardized diagnosis , treatment , and terminology .
PURPOSE In an attempt to determine whether patterns existed that may facilitate st and ardization of care , we sought to analyze the terminologies used and the various modes of diagnosis and treatment of suspected discogenic pain .