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 .
Prospective randomized study of the Charite artificial disc: data from two investigational centers.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT For decades there has been a desire to restore motion of a painful degenerated spinal segment . Artificial discs have been used in Europe for almost 20 years . In the few reports available in the literature , the results have been promising . However , there have been no prospect i ve r and omized studies comparing artificial discs with spinal fusion . PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease treated with Charite artificial disc ( DePuy Spine , Raynham , MA ) arthroplasty  would show significant improvement in functional outcome measures and to compare these results to fusion . STUDY DESIGN / SETTING This was a prospect i ve r and omized clinical trial comparing total disc replacement with anterior lumbar interbody fusion using cages . The data reported were collected from two spine specialty centers participating in a Food and Drug Administration regulated trial . METHODS A consecutive series of 144 patients were r and omized using a 2:1 ratio of Charite versus BAK ( Zimmer Spine , Minneapolis , MN ) . All patients were being treated for single-level discogenic pain confirmed by plain radiography , magnetic resonance imaging and provocative discography . Data were collected at design ated follow-up periods for up to 24 months . RESULTS The mean age was 40.1 years ( range , 21 to 56 years ) . Forty-four cases had BAK anterior interbody fusion , and 100 cases were r and omized to Charite disc replacement . The mean operating time was 76.2 minutes ( range , 54 to 137 minutes ) for the Charite cases . The mean estimated blood loss was 196.2 cc ( range , 50 to 1,800 cc ) . Most patients were discharged in 1 to 2 days with a soft corset and returned to normal activities within 3 weeks if they underwent the disc replacement . The mean Oswestry Disability Index score for the BAK group was 69.6+/-12.8 preoperatively and 27.5+/-26.4 at 24-month follow-up ( p<.001 ) The corresponding mean Oswestry score for the Charite disc patients was 70.9 preoperatively and 30.0 at 24-month follow-up ( p<.001 ) . CONCLUSIONS In this prospect i ve r and omized study , both surgical groups improved significantly . Complications of total disc replacement were similar to those encountered with anterior lumbar interbody fusion . Total disc replacement appears to be a viable alternative to fusion for the treatment of single-level symptomatic disc degeneration unresponsive to nonoperative management
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 .