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 .
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Disc Disease Using a Minimally Invasive B-Twin Expandable Spinal Spacer: A Multicenter Study
Acquired degenerative disc disease causes gradual disc space collapse , concurrent discogenic or facet-induced pain , and possible compression radiculopathy . Surgical treatment aims to re-exp and the intervertebral space and stabilize the involved segment in balanced alignment until fusion is complete . The prevailing methods make use of a twin cage device of predetermined size . Their implantation requires extensive exposure , entailing the sacrifice of posterior stabilizing structures . The procedure also results in significant traction on the dural sac and the cauda equina and is thereby a potential source of neurologic damage . The new exp and able spinal spacer ( ESS ) was design ed to mitigate all the shortcomings alluded to above . A prospect i ve multicenter clinical study was conducted of 87 patients with chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease , treated by posterior lumbar interbody fusion ( PLIF ) using a newly design ed ESS . The study protocol was approved by the ethics committees of all the participating institutions . The objective was to test the safety and efficacy of the device . Each participant was followed periodically for > 1 postoperative year . The ongoing record included intraoperative difficulties and complications , if any , radiologic evidence of fusion and clinical outcome as scored by pre- and postoperative question naires pertaining to pain intensity and degree of disability . No dural lacerations or neurologic deficit occurred . There were no mechanical failures of the spacer . Radiologic study demonstrated fusion in all but one patient . Disc space height that averaged 7.53 ± 2.42 mm before surgery increased to 10.03 ± 2.00 mm at the time of surgery and stabilized at 9.47 ± 2.10 mm upon final follow-up . Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Index decreased by 60 % and 58 % , respectively . PLIF using the ESS achieves the same ultimate outcome as do other methods currently in use but does not share the h and icaps and hazards and is more user-friendly to the surgeon
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 .