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 .
Results of the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the ProDisc®-L Total Disc Replacement Versus Circumferential Fusion for the Treatment of 1-Level Degenerative Disc Disease
Study Design . A prospect i ve , r and omized , multicenter , Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial . Objective . To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc ® -L ( Synthes Spine , West Chester , PA ) lumbar total disc replacement compared to circumferential spinal fusion for the treatment of discogenic pain at 1 vertebral level between L3 and S1 . Summary of Background Data . As part of the Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial , favorable single center results of lumbar total disc replacement with the ProDisc ® -L have been reported previously . Methods . Two hundred eighty-six ( 286 ) patients were treated on protocol . Patients were evaluated before and after surgery , at 6 weeks , 3 , 6 , 12 , 18 , and 24 months . Evaluation at each visit included patient self- assessment s , physical and neurologic examinations , and radiographic evaluation . Results . Safety of ProDisc ® -L implantation was demonstrated with 0 % major complications . At 24 months , 91.8 % of investigational and 84.5 % of control patients reported improvement in the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Question naire ( Oswestry Disability Index [ ODI ] ) from preoperative levels , and 77.2 % of investigational and 64.8 % of control patients met the ≥15 % Oswestry Disability Index improvement criteria . Overall neurologic success in the investigational group was superior to the control group ( 91.2 % investigational and 81.4 % control ; P = 0.0341 ) . At 6 weeks and 3 months follow-up time points , the ProDisc ® -L patients recorded SF-36 Health Survey scores significantly higher than the control group ( P = 0.018 , P = 0.0036 , respectively ) . The visual analog scale pain assessment showed statistically significant improvement from preoperative levels regardless of treatment ( P < 0.0001 ) . Visual analog scale patient satisfaction at 24 months showed a statistically significant difference favoring investigational patients over the control group ( P = 0.015 ) . Radiographic range of motion was maintained within a normal functional range in 93.7 % of investigational patients and averaged 7.7 ° . Conclusions . ProDisc ® -L has been found to be safe and efficacious . In properly chosen patients , ProDisc ® -L has been shown to be superior to circumferential fusion by multiple clinical criteria
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 .