We have located links that may give you full text access.
Disc height discrepancy between supine and standing positions as a screening metric for discogenic back pain in patients with disc degeneration.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The diagnosis of discogenic low back pain (LBP) from disc degeneration of the lumbar spine is often evaluated with discography. Noninvasive, simple screening methods other than invasive discography are useful, as evidence supporting clinical findings and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have come to the forefront.
PURPOSE: To investigate disc height (DH) discrepancy between supine and standing positions on simple radiography to clarify its clinical screening value in individuals with discogenic LBP.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGS: Retrospective matched cohort design.
PATIENT SAMPLE: Ninety-two patients with early to middle stage disc degeneration (Pfirrmann grade II, III, or IV).
OUTCOME MEASURES: Each subject underwent simple radiographs and MRI. Baseline characteristics, including demographic data and MRI findings, and radiological findings, including DH discrepancy, segmental angle, and sagittal balance, were analyzed. DH discrepancy ratio was calculated as (1 - [calibrated DH on standing radiography/calibrated DH on supine radiography]) × 100%.
METHODS: We matched LBP group of 46 patients with intractable discogenic pain (≥7 of visual analog scale scores) confirmed by discography with control group of 46 patients with similar stage disc degeneration with mild LBP (≤4 of visual analog scale scores). Binary regression analysis, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and cut-off value for diagnosis were used to evaluate and clarify diagnostic value of various factors.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, pathological level, and magnetic resonance findings such as disc degeneration, high intensity zone, and para-spinal muscle volume. Among the various radiological findings, the calibrated mean DH in the standing position (20.87±5.65 [LBP group] vs. 26.95±3.02 [control group], p<.001) and the DH discrepancy ratio (14.55±6.13% [LBP group] vs. 1.47±0.75% [control group], p=.007) were significantly different between the two groups. The cut-off value for DH discrepancy ratio to screen discogenic LBP was ≥6.04%. Additionally, as a compensation for pain, sagittal vertical axis (3.43±2.03 cm [LBP group] vs. -0.54±3.05 cm [control group], p=.002) and pelvic incidence (54.74±6.76° [LBP group] vs. 43.98±8.67° [control group]; p=.006) were different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that DH discrepancy between the supine and standing positions could be a screening metric for discogenic LBP in early to middle stage disc degeneration of the lumbar spine.
PURPOSE: To investigate disc height (DH) discrepancy between supine and standing positions on simple radiography to clarify its clinical screening value in individuals with discogenic LBP.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGS: Retrospective matched cohort design.
PATIENT SAMPLE: Ninety-two patients with early to middle stage disc degeneration (Pfirrmann grade II, III, or IV).
OUTCOME MEASURES: Each subject underwent simple radiographs and MRI. Baseline characteristics, including demographic data and MRI findings, and radiological findings, including DH discrepancy, segmental angle, and sagittal balance, were analyzed. DH discrepancy ratio was calculated as (1 - [calibrated DH on standing radiography/calibrated DH on supine radiography]) × 100%.
METHODS: We matched LBP group of 46 patients with intractable discogenic pain (≥7 of visual analog scale scores) confirmed by discography with control group of 46 patients with similar stage disc degeneration with mild LBP (≤4 of visual analog scale scores). Binary regression analysis, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and cut-off value for diagnosis were used to evaluate and clarify diagnostic value of various factors.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, pathological level, and magnetic resonance findings such as disc degeneration, high intensity zone, and para-spinal muscle volume. Among the various radiological findings, the calibrated mean DH in the standing position (20.87±5.65 [LBP group] vs. 26.95±3.02 [control group], p<.001) and the DH discrepancy ratio (14.55±6.13% [LBP group] vs. 1.47±0.75% [control group], p=.007) were significantly different between the two groups. The cut-off value for DH discrepancy ratio to screen discogenic LBP was ≥6.04%. Additionally, as a compensation for pain, sagittal vertical axis (3.43±2.03 cm [LBP group] vs. -0.54±3.05 cm [control group], p=.002) and pelvic incidence (54.74±6.76° [LBP group] vs. 43.98±8.67° [control group]; p=.006) were different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that DH discrepancy between the supine and standing positions could be a screening metric for discogenic LBP in early to middle stage disc degeneration of the lumbar spine.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app