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 .
Intradiscal high-voltage, long-duration pulsed radiofrequency for discogenic pain: a preliminary report.
BACKGROUND Intradiscal radiofrequency , with the electrode placed in the center of the nucleus pulposus , has been a controversial procedure in patients with discogenic pain . Possibly the effect has not been due to the production of heat , but to exposure to electric fields . DESIGN We have investigated the effect of high-voltage , long- duration intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency in patients with one-level discogenic low back pain , as confirmed by discography . OUTCOME MEASURE The pain intensity score on a 0 - 10 numeric rating scale ( NRS ) was taken as outcome measure . PATIENTS Eight patients were reported . The  mean duration of pain was 6.3 years ( range 0.5 - 16 , median 4 ) . The mean NRS score was 7.75 ( range 5 - 9 ) . Disc height was reduced 60 % in one patient and up to 30 % in the others . INTERVENTION A 15-cm , 20-gauge needle with a 15-mm active tip was placed central ly in the disc . Pulsed radiofrequency was applied for 20 min at a setting of 2 x 20 ms/s and 60 V. RESULTS There was a very significant fall in the NRS scores over the first 3 months ( P < 0.0001 ) . On an individual basis , all patients had a fall of the NRS score of at least 4 points at the 3-month follow-up . A follow-up of 12.8 months ( range 6 - 25 , median 9 ) was available for five patients . All these patients are now pain free , except for one patient with an NRS score of 2 . Conclusion . It is concluded that this method merits a controlled , prospect i ve study
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 .