1 / 57

January 2008 AADEP San Antonio Discography and the Evaluation of LBP Eugene J Carragee, MD Stanford University

January 2008 AADEP San Antonio Discography and the Evaluation of LBP Eugene J Carragee, MD Stanford University LBP Evaluation in Context Primary Diagnostic Evaluation (<50% ?) LBP short duration (days - weeks) Hx, PE, “rule out “red flags” of serious pathology

ostinmannual
Download Presentation

January 2008 AADEP San Antonio Discography and the Evaluation of LBP Eugene J Carragee, MD Stanford University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. January 2008AADEP San AntonioDiscography and the Evaluation of LBPEugene J Carragee, MDStanford University

  2. LBP Evaluation in Context • Primary Diagnostic Evaluation (<50% ?) • LBP short duration (days - weeks) • Hx, PE, “rule out “red flags” of serious pathology • Secondary Diagnostic Evaluation (<5%) • LBP not improving (weeks to1-2 months) • Add ESR, CRP, MRI, motion study X-Rays • Rule out “Yellow Flags”, psychosocial/neurophysiologic factors that inhibit recovery OR coping. • Teritiary Diagnostic Evaluation (<1%) • Persistent pain, considering specific rx (months to 1 year) • Only common degenerative findings on imaging so far • Consider discography to identify disc as “pain generator”

  3. Common MRI Findings and Pain • DDD • Poor correlation with sx (Jensen, Boden) • Anular Disruption and HIZ • Poor PPV or NPV (Jensen, Boden, Carragee, etc) • Relative > in CLBP vs Asx (50% vs 15 -25%) • Disc Protrusion and Stenosis • Extrusion (large) rarely seen in Asx (< 5%) • SS neural compression less common in Asx (15%) • Sx -> radicular; not a good LBP predictor • Endplate Changes -- latest flavor

  4. Common MRI Findings and Pain • Modic I - II changes (mod - sev) • 10% Asx subjects (Weishaupt Rad 98) • 100% PPV at disocgraphy in sx (Weishaupt Radiology 2000) • Prediction of future LBP • Best but very modest correlation of future LBP • Boos Spine (2000) • Carragee Spine J (2004) • Much worse than: • DRAM, FABQ, Work Comp, Chronic Pain, Smoking

  5. Imaging Findings • If MRI, CT and Bone Scan are not specific for LBP illness • Then, how do we finds the “pain generator”

  6. But first - Defining a Clinically Relevant Pain Generator • The “Pain Generator” in LBP illness • as an isolated local pathoanatomic structure • Not a physiologic process or psychogenic complaint • independent of co-morbid factors • (chronic pain states, depression, somatic distress, litigation, secondary gain, etc) • Reasonable accounts for the chronic LBP illness of the patient • When do “Positive” disc injections identify the true “pain generator”?

  7. Discography Goal • To be a reliable, objective test that can identify a disc as the primary pathology in patients suffering from significant LBP illness. • How reliably does discography “identify the pathological feature causing Low Back Pain Illness?” -- [specificity] • Or “rule out” a disc as a significant pain source? -- [Sensitivity]

  8. The Good Discogram of San Francisco • 54 yo master chef. • 3 years severe LBP, radiates to gluteals only. • No medical problems (really!). • Barely able to work. • VAS 7-9, Oswestry 45, Daily NSAIDS, occ narcs. • Psychometric: normal psychometrics, pain drawing. • No WC, litigation, high prestige job, stable marriage • X-Ray, collapse and retrolisth L5/S1 • MRI: nl L2/3, DDD L3/4, L4/5

  9. The Good Discogram of San Francisco • In this case…discography, may be key to treatment--> • Nl L2/3 • Anular Disruption L3/4, L4/5 • No pain to 50 p.s.i., mild pain at 100. • L5/S1 not injected. • ALIF L5/S1 -- 1998 • Returned to work, 2 months p-op, full duty 4 months p-op. (regular 50# lift/carry) • 2 yr f/u VAS 0-2, Oswestry 5, occ NSAIDS • 5 yr f/u VAS 1-3, Oswestry 8, no meds • Some further DDD at L4/5 (now 59 yo)

  10. Reliability of Pain Reporting in Discography Note in this Case #1: • No concurrent or history of other chronic pain processes. • No litigation, WC or secondary gain issues. • Normal psychometric, no “reactive depression, anxiety, somatic distress…” • Ablation of the suspected “Pain Generator” give high-quality outcome which lasts.

  11. Factors Affecting Reported Pain on Disc Injections • Disc • Anular Disruption • Pressure Applied • Local Pain Sensitivity • Regional chronic pain, previous injury/surgery • Generalized Pain Sensitivity • Narcotics, Central Pain Syndromes, • Incentives (Financial, Social) • Disincentives (Financial Social) ? 3 /10 vs 7 /10

  12. Hypothetical Response to Pressurization of a Degenerative Disc Depending on “Pain Sensitivity” “Normal” Hypersensitive Chronic Pain Syndrome Psychological Distress 2° Gain Issues Narcotic Habituation Reduced Social Imperatives Psychological Reserve Cultural Norms Pain Increasing Injection Pressure ---->

  13. Evidence for Validity and Usefulness of Discography • Sackett and Hayes (Br. Med J: 324) Evidence -base criteria for Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests Four Phases - • 1. Dx test results in completely normals / no sx / no co-morbidities. • 2. Dx test results in subjects w/o the disease BUT w/ sx of disease • 3. Dx test applied in subjects w/o the disease BUT epidemiologically likely to have disease (i.e. co-morbidies of the disease) • 4. Does having the test result improve outcomes • What is the evidence in discography?

  14. Studies of Subjects w/o LBP • Classic Study - Walsh et al 1990 • Healthy young men, little DDD, no chronic pain states, nl psych (Phase 1) • Derby, Chen, et al (2003), ISIS: • Middle-age, nl psych, highly motivated (Spinal Injection Society Members) (Phase 1, 2) • Stanford Group: (2000) (Phase 1 -> 3) • Middle-aged, +DDD, no chronic pain, 80% nl psych. • Middle-aged, +DDD, chronic pain, 40% nl psych • Middle-aged, +DDD, chronic pain, + somatization.

  15. Increasing Risk Factors

  16. Subjects w/o LBP Summary Psychometric testing, chronic pain, litigation/contested and anular disruption strongly predict painful injections. Increasing Risk Factors

  17. Hypothetical Response to Pressurization of a Degenerative Disc Depending on “Pain Sensitivity” “Normal” Hypersensitive Chronic Pain Syndrome Psychological Distress 2° Gain Issues Narcotic Habituation Reduced Social Imperatives Psychological Reserve Cultural Norms Pain Increasing Injection Pressure ---->

  18. Do discography pts often have “Risk Factors”? • Abn Psych Testing • 80% Discography + (Stanford) • 79% Discography + (Derby) • 80% DDD fusions (Fritzell) • Compensation Issues • 76% (Schwarzer) • 75% (Derby) • 68% (Carragee) • Chronic Pain • 100% -- by definition CLBP • 70% -- other chronic pain issues (IBS, TMJ, Migraine…) • But don’t all chronic BP patients develop abnormal pain behavior, abnormal psych profiles etc?

  19. Not Really… look at 3 groups with serious sx for 6 - 18 months • Discogenic pain • Positive discography (1-3 levels) • no other pathology known • Carragee et al (Spine 1999, 2000) • Isthmic spondylolisthesis • CLBP + Sciatica • Scheduled for single level fusion • Carragee (JBJB 1997) • Pyogenic Vertebral Osteomyeolitis • Delayed diagnosis • Dx unknown at time of data collection • Carragee (JBJS 1997)

  20. VAS (mean)

  21. Oswestry Scores Discogenic pain / PVO significantly worse than Spondy (0.01)

  22. Psychometric Scores Disc pain most abnormal P = 0.0001

  23. 75-85% nl 21% nl

  24. Chronic LBP Patients with Non-specific findings = “Discogenic Pain”* • Cairns et al 2003; Carragee et al 2001; Schwarzer 1995/96

  25. Profiles in Other Spine Pts with Severe Chronic Pain Which one is not like the other? * * - non RA pain

  26. Compare Other Chronic Pain without Clear Local Pathology Coincidence ?

  27. How reliable is “Concordancy” Experimental LBP Model (Phase 3) • Subjects scheduled for posterior ICBG • for non-lumbar problems (fracture non-union, tumor) • Screened for LBP before ICBG • No current of life-time hx of LBP • LBP hx screening 3 x before study • All with normal psychometric testing • Discography done after ICGB • pain concordancy rated at discography to ICBG pain • Will disc stimulation pain reproduce ICBG pain • Completing Study - 8 pts / 24 disc injections • Carragee et al Spine 1999

  28. Concordancy Test Model 60% painful discs felt similar to / or exactly like ICBG pain. 50% subjects had + concordant discogram by all criteria. 25% subj. had at least 1 low pressure sensitive disc.

  29. Schematic Approach to Back Pain Perception and Discography

  30. Perception Concordancy and The LBP Pathway 7 8 9 Cerebral Thalamus 6 5 Cord Pathway Modulation 1 Adjacent tissue injury 2Local Anaesthetic 3 Nearby tissue injury 4 Regional Chronic Pain 5 Narcotic Analgesia 6 Narcotic Habituation 7 Depression 8 Social Imperitives 9 Social Disincentives DRG 4 Similar Sclerotomal Afferents 3 2 Visceral Vascular Muscular Facet Bone Pelvic L4/5 Disc L5/S1 Disc L3/4 Disc 1

  31. That’s my Pain!!!! Best Case ScenarioOne pain source Cerebral Thalamus And if you fix it, I’ll feel all better! Cord DRG Similar Sclerotomal Afferents Visceral Muscular Facet Bone Pelvic L4/5 Disc L5/S1 Disc L3/4 Disc

  32. That’s my Pain! ! ! Two equal pain sources Cerebral Thalamus And if you fuse it I’ll be a somewhat better... Cord DRG Similar Sclerotomal Afferents Visceral Muscular Pelvic L4/5 Disc L5/S1 Disc L3/4 Disc

  33. That’s my Pain!!!! 1° Non-discogenic pain source, minor disc pain Cerebral Hyperalgesic Pain Pathway Thalamus And if you fuse it I’ll be about the same... Cord DRG Similar Sclerotomal Afferents Visceral Vascular Facet Bone Muscular Pelvic L4/5 Disc L5/S1 Disc L3/4 Disc

  34. Case 2 • 35 yo man, severe LBP x 7 mo. • Unable to work x 3 month. • VAS 9-10, Oswestry 50, • Psych “At risk” • Meds Daily Narcotics • X-ray nl, MRI DDD + HIZ L5/S1 • Discogram: 10/10 concordant pain L5/S1 • Nl L4/5, L3/4, but CT sclerosis L4 pedicle.

  35. Case 2 • Bone Spec Scan, hot at L4 • Excisional biopsy, “osteiod osteoma” • Fusion L3-4, unilateral pedicle screws. • RTW, 2 month post-op • 3 year f/u • VAS 1-2, Oswestry 10, occ. NSAID • Stanford Score 8.8 (0-10) • Why did the L5/S1 disc have a severe concordant pain with injection?

  36. That’s my Pain!!!! Multiply Operated Back Cerebral Hyperalgesic Pain Pathway Thalamus Depression Somatization Cord DRG And if you fuse another level, I’ll be as miserable as ever... Similar Sclerotomal Afferents Visceral Vascular Facet Bone Muscular Pelvic L4/5 Disc L5/S1 Disc L3/4 Disc

  37. That’s my Pain!!!! 1° Psychological pain source, common backache Cerebral Hyperalgesic Pain Pathway Thalamus Depression Somatization “fibromyalgia” Cord DRG Similar Sclerotomal Afferents “And if you fuse it, you should think of moving your practice…” Visceral Vascular Facet Bone Muscular Pelvic L4/5 Disc L5/S1 Disc L3/4 Disc

  38. Case 3 • 49 yo woman, severe LBP, no WC BUT... • Disabled for years, conserv. Rx makes worse. Injections give transient relief. • Also CTS, migraines, pelvic pain, palpitations, irritable bowel syndrome. • CTR, appy, chole (no help) in past • In ER 1 week PTA “unable to move legs”. • Sister says: “ She has a very high pain threshold…”

  39. Case 3 • Work up shows collapsing weakness and DDD in spine, MRI no tumor, infection, cord compression. • Returns 6 weeks later with outside w/u: • Discography L4/5 and L5/S1 10/10 concordant and fissured, low pressure. • L3/4 mild DDD 2/10 discordant pain • Psych interview feels emotiomal sx due to chronic pain. • A surgeon recommends fusion based on the “objective findings on discography…”

  40. Case 3-- ”She’s Back” • Returns 2 years later had surgery • L4-S1 solid 360° fusion • Still terrible pain but feels surgery “helped” for a few months…(would do it again). • Recent Discogram shows 10/10 L3/4 pain. • Negative L2/3 “control” • Another surgeon now recommends to fuse L3/4 based on positive discogram. • How did we get into this mess...

  41. Do people with common backache have painful disc injections? • Phase 2 discography protocol... • 25 volunteers with persistent LBP • > 2 year, OSW < 15 • No work loss, No activity restriction • No meds, not seeking medical rx. • Nl psych • MRI Signal loss in at least 1 lumbar disc • That is: People with “common backache.” • Carragee et al, The Spine Journal, 2002

  42. Common Backache Study Protocol • Full Walsh protocol for experimental discography. • Question: • What kind of pain response? • Will it be concordant if present? • Can we differential using discography CLBP patients from Common Backache?

  43. Bachache and Discography • 36% “Backache group” had “bad” concordant pain • Most are low pressure sensitive discs • It is possible discography cannot tell common • clinically-irrelevent BP from CLBP illness.

  44. That’s my Pain!!!! Common backache Cerebral Normal “amplified” Pain Pathway Thalamus And so what…its not a problem? Cord DRG Similar Sclerotomal Afferents Visceral Vascular Facet Bone Muscular Pelvic L4/5 Disc L5/S1 Disc L3/4 Disc

  45. 48 yo man, long hx LBP, occ. treatment MVA 1997, pt claims “different LBP” since accident and totally disabled. Seen after work-up, referred for discography. MRI shows DDD, L4/5, L5/1 HIZ at L4/5 Or is it a problem…Case 4

  46. Diffuse pain. Bizarre pain drawing. OSW = 62; VAS (mn) = 8; Daily Narc. DRAM - Distressed Despressed Pre-existing “Anxiety Disorder” Will discography clear up this picture? Working the system…Case 4

  47. Seen 8 months later at request of his attorney. Discography done in community: L3/4 minor fissuring; 8/10 concord. L4/5 and L5/S1 anular tear; 10/10 concord. L2/3 “neg control disc” Report reads“3 levelsymptomatic anular tears …caused by recent accident since [injection] only reproduces new pain since accident…causation in legal action clearly determined by discographic findings”. Working the System

  48. That’s my Pain!!!! Secondary Gain (litigation) + pre-existing backache Cerebral Hyperalgesic Pain Pathway Thalamus “And it never felt like this before that the postal truck hit my car at 3 mph” Cord DRG Similar Sclerotomal Afferents Visceral Vascular Facet Bone Muscular Pelvic L4/5 Disc L5/S1 Disc L3/4 Disc

  49. Acid TestDoes discography improve outcomes • Mixed • Comparing fusion surgerys in different studies w/ and w/o discography • No differences (Cohen, et al 2003) • British retrospective study with very different patient groups (Calhoun) • Modestly improved outcomes in discography group. • New York Group(2003 J Spinal Dis) • Prospective • Historical control • No difference in discography group: using discography did not improve outcomes in this controlled study.

  50. Outcome as Gold Standard • Usually Outcome is considered poor diagnostic gold standard: • Failure related to patient selection • Failure related to operative morbidity • Controlled “Pain Generator” Study • Single Level “Discography +” group versus • An ideal single segment “Pain Generator” • Unstable spondylolisthesis (>4 mm / >11°) • Do identical operation -- 360° fusion • No Comorbidites--

More Related