Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is lumbar discography a determinate of discogenic low back pain: Provocative discography reconsidered

  • Published:
Current Review of Pain Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Provocative lumbar discography was investigated in a series of clinical studies at the Stanford University of Medicine, Stanford, CA. This work demonstrated that pain intensity during disc injection is strongly influenced by the subject’s emotional and psychological profiles, chronic pain behavior, and ongoing compensation claims whether the patient has any back pain illness or not. Pain reproduction was also primarily related to penetration of the dye through the outer annulus and could not reliably be used to confirm the location of the pain source.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Allan DB, Waddell G: An historical perspective on low back pain and disability. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1989, 234:1–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Frymoyer J, ed: The magnitude of the problem. In The Lumbar Spine, vol 1, edn 2. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1996:8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bigos S, Battie M, Spengler D, et al.: A prospective study of work perceptions and psychosocial factors affecting the report of back injury. Spine 1991, 16:1–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bigos S, Battie M, Spengler D, et al.: A longitudinal, prospective study of industrial back injury reporting. Clin Orthop 1992, 279:21–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burton A: Spine update: back injury and work loss: biomechanical and psychosocial influences. Spine 1997, 22:2575–2580.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burton A, Tillotson K, Main C, et al.: Psychosocial predictors of outcome in acute and subacute low back trouble. Spine 1995, 20:722–728.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Klenerman L, Slade P, Stanley I, et al.: The prediction of chronicity in patients with acute attack of low back pain in a general practice setting. Spine 1995, 20:478–484.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Main C, Wood P, Hollis S, et al.: The distress and risk assessment method (DRAM): a simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of a poor outcome. Spine 1992, 17:42–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boden S, Davis D, Dina T, et al.: Abnormal magnetic resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects: a prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990, 72A:403–408.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen M, Brant-Zawadzki M, Obuchowski N, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. New Engl J Med 1994, 331:69–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weisel S, Tsourmas N, Feffer H, et al.: A study of computerassisted tomography. I. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an symptomatic group of patients. Spine 1984, 9:549–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carragee E: Prevalence and clinical features of internal disk disruption in patients with low back pain [letter]. Spine 1996, 21:776–777.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aprill C, Bogduk N: High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 1992, 65:361–369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bogduk N: Point of view. Spine 1998, 23:1259–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwarzer A, Aprill C, Bogduk N: The sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain. Spine 1995, 20:31–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwarzer A, Aprill C, Derby R, et al.: The prevalence and clinical features of internal disc disruption in patients with chronic LBP. Spine 1995, 20:1878–1883.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwarzer A, Aprill C, Fortin J, et al.: The relative contribution of the zygapophyseal joint in chronic low back pain. Spine 1994, 19:801–806.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwarzer A, Aprill CN, Derby R, et al.: The prevalence and clinical features of internal disk disruption in patients with low back pain. Spine 1995, 20:1878–1883.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vanharanta H, Sachs BL, Ohnmeiss DD, et al.: Pain provocation and disc deterioration by age. ACT/discography study in a low-back pain population. Spine 1989, 14:420–423.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weinstein J, Claverie W, Gibson S: The pain of discography. Spine 1988, 13:1344–1348.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yrjama M, Tervonen O, Kurunlahti M, et al.: Boney vibration simulation test combined with magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 1997, 22:808–813.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zuckerman J, Derby R, Hsu K, et al.: Normal magnetic resonance imaging with abnormal discography. Spine 1988, 13:1355–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guyer R, Ohnmeiss D: Lumbar discography. Position statement from the North American Spine Society Diagnostic and Therapeutic Committee. Spine 1995, 20:2048–2059.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sachs B, Vanharanta H, Spivey M, et al.: Dallas discogram description: a new classification of CT/discography in low-back disorders. Spine 1987, 12:287–284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moneta G, Videman T, Kaivanto K, et al.: Reported pain during lumbar discography as a function of anular ruptures and disc degeneration: a reanalysis of 833 discograms. Spine 1994, 19:1968–1974.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Walsh T, Weinstein J, Spratt K, et al.: Lumbar discography in normal subjects: a controlled prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg 1990, 72A:1081–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Derby R, Howard MW, Grant JM, et al.: The ability of pressure-controlled discography to predict surgical and nonsurgical outcomes. Spine 1999, 24:364–671. Some patients with low back pain syndromes appeared to respond to discographic injection with pain at very low injection pressures. The authors suggest this is due to a chemical irritation of neurologic structures by material expressed from the disc during injection rather than mechanical distension of the disc. The “chemically” sensitive disc patients responded best to anterior rather than posterior spinal fusion.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heggeness MH, Watters WC, III, Gray PM Jr: Discography of lumbar discs after surgical treatment for disc herniation. Spine 1997, 22:1606–1609.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Carragee EJ: Single-level posterolateral arthrodesis, with or without posterior decompression, for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997, 79:1175–1180.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Holt E: The question of discography. J Bone Joint Surg 1967, 50A:720–726.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nachemson A: Lumbar discography—where are we today? Spine 1989, 14:555–557.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Massie W, Stevens D: A critical evaluation of discography. J Bone Joint Surg 1967, 49A:1243–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Carragee E, Tanner C, Vittum D, et al.: Positive provocative discography as a misleading finding in the evaluation of low back pain [abstract]. In Proceedings of the North American Spine Society. Chicago, IL: 1997:388.

  34. Block A, Vanharanta H, Ohnmeiss D, et al.: Discographic pain report: influence of psychological factors. Spine 1996, 1:334–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ohnmeiss DD, Vanharanta H, Guyer RD: The association between pain drawings and computed tomographic/ discographic pain responses. Spine 1995, 20:729–733.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Carragee E, Tanner C, Khurana S, et al.: False positive lumbar discography in select patients without low back complaints. Spine 2000, in press. Subjects with no history of low back pain underwent experimental discography. Three groups were examined including normal, chronic pain, and somatization disorder subjects. Magnitude of pain on disc injection varied with disc disruption, psychological distress, and history of active compensation claims. Overall, 10 of 26 subjects had significantly painful injections.

  37. Carragee E, Chen Y, Tanner C, et al.: Provocative discography in patients after limited lumbar discectomy. A controlled, randomized study of pain response in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects. In Proceedings of the North American Spine Society. Chicago, IL: 1999:95–96. This paper examined the pain response to provocative discography in subjects with and without back complaints at levels of previous discectomy. The pain on injection was high in both groups in those previously operated discs compared with nonoperated discs. The magnitude of pain corresponded with psychometric measures of depression and somatic awareness.

  38. Siddle P, Cousins M: Spinal pain mechanisms. Spine 1997, 22:98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lenz F, Gracely R, Romanoski A, et al.: Simulation in the somatosensory thalamus can reproduce both the affective and sensory dimensions of previously experienced pain. Nat Med 1995, 1:910–913.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lenz FA, Gracely RH, Hope EJ, et al.: The sensation of angina can be evoked by stimulation of the human thalamus. Pain 1994, 59:119–125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Carragee E, Tanner C, Yang B, et al.: False positive findings on lumbar discography: reliability of subjective concordance assessment during provocative disc injection. Spine 1999, 24:2542–2547. In an experimental model of nondiscogenic low back pain, subjects with no history of low back pain but a recent posterior iliac crest bone graft harvesting could not discriminate the pain sensation on disc stimulation from the pain from the recent iliac crest bone graft surgery. The study calls into question the reliability of pain reproduction as used in provocative discography.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ito M, Incorvaia KM, Yu SF, et al.: Predictive signs of discogenic lumbar pain on magnetic resonance imaging with discography correlation. Spine 1998, 23:1252–1258.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schellhas KP, Pollei SR: The role of discography in the evaluation of patients with spinal deformity. Orthop Clin North Am 1994, 25:265–273.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schellhas KP, Pollei SR, Dorwart RH: Thoracic discography. A safe and reliable technique. Spine 1994, 19:2103–2109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schellhas KP, Pollei SR, Gundry CR, et al.: Lumbar disc highintensity zone. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging and discography. Spine 1996, 21:79–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schellhas KP, Smith MD, Gundry CR, et al.: Cervical discogenic pain. Prospective correlation of magnetic resonance imaging and discography in asymptomatic subjects and pain sufferers. Spine 1996, 21:300–311.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. R-171 Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 94305, Stanford, CA, USA

    Eugene J. Carragee MD

Authors
  1. Eugene J. Carragee MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carragee, E.J. Is lumbar discography a determinate of discogenic low back pain: Provocative discography reconsidered. Current Review of Pain 4, 301–308 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-000-0107-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-000-0107-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation