Systematic review of thoracic discography as a diagnostic test for chronic spinal pain

Pain Diagnostics Associates, Niagara, WI 54151, USA.
Pain physician (Impact Factor: 4.77). 11/2007; 11(5):631-42.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Even though the prevalence of thoracic pain has been reported to be 15% of the general population and up to 22% of the population in interventional pain management settings, the role of thoracic discs as a cause of chronic thoracic and extrathoracic pain has not been well researched. The intervertebral discs, zygapophysial or facet joints, and other structures including the costovertebral and costotransverse joints have been identified as a source of thoracic pain.
To systematically assess the quality of clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of provocation thoracic discography.
A systematic review of provocation thoracic discography.
A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic discography with respect to chronic, function limiting, thoracic or extrathoracic pain. Studies meeting the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic quality criteria with scores of 50 or higher were included for the assessment of the level of evidence. Level of evidence was based on the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for the assessment of accuracy of diagnostic studies. Based on the level of evidence, recommendations were made according to Guyatt et al's criteria.
The clinical value of thoracic provocation discography is limited (Level II-3) with 2C/weak recommendation derived from low quality or very low quality evidence indicating that other alternatives may be equally reasonable.
Based on the available evidence for this systematic review, thoracic provocation discography is provided with a weak recommendation for the diagnosis of discogenic pain in the thoracic spine, if conservative management has failed. This is qualified by the need to appropriately evaluate and diagnose other causes of chronic thoracic pain including pain originating from thoracic facet joints.

Download full-text


Available from: Scott E Glaser, Mar 12, 2014
  • Source
    • "Thoracic pain has been described to originate from multiple structures, including intervertebral discs and facet joints, both of which can be evaluated by proven diagnostic techniques [15] [16] [19] [21]. The accuracy of diagnostic blocks of thoracic facet joints is superior to discography. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design. A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial. Objective. To determine the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with or without steroids in managing chronic mid back and upper back pain. Summary of Background Data. The prevalence of thoracic facet joint pain has been established as 34% to 42%. Multiple therapeutic techniques utilized in managing chronic thoracic pain of facet joint origin include medial branch blocks, radiofrequency neurotomy, and intraarticular injections. Methods. This randomized double-blind active controlled trial was performed in 100 patients with 50 patients in each group who received medial branch blocks with local anesthetic alone or local anesthetic and steroids. Outcome measures included the numeric rating scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), opioid intake, and work status, at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Results. Significant improvement with significant pain relief and functional status improvement of 50% or more were observed in 80% of the patients in Group I and 84% of the patients in Group II at 2-year followup. Conclusions. Therapeutic medial branch blocks of thoracic facets with or without steroids may provide a management option for chronic function-limiting thoracic pain of facet joint origin.
    Anesthesiology Research and Practice 07/2012; 2012:585806. DOI:10.1155/2012/585806
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic neck pain represents a significant public health problem. Despite high prevalence rates, there is a lack of consensus regarding the causes or treatments for this condition. Based on controlled evaluations, the cervical intervertebral discs, facet joints, and atlantoaxial joints have all been implicated as pain generators. Cervical provocation discography, which includes disc stimulation and morphological evaluation, is often used to distinguish a painful disc from other potential sources of pain. Yet in the absence of validation and controlled outcome studies, the procedure remains mired in controversy. A systematic review of the cervical discography literature. To evaluate the validity and usefulness of cervical provocation discography in managing and diagnosing discogenic pain by means of a systematic review. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, selected studies were subjected to a modified Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) diagnostic accuracy evaluation. Qualitative analysis was conducted using 5 levels of evidence, ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. The rating scheme was modified to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy. A systematic review of the literature demonstrated that cervical discography plays a significant role in selecting surgical candidates and improving outcomes, despite concerns regarding the false-positive rate, lack of standardization, and assorted potential confounding factors. Based on the studies utilizing the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) criteria, the data show a prevalence rate ranging between 16% and 20%. Based on the 3 studies that utilized IASP criteria during the performance of cervical discography, the evidence derived from studies evaluating the diagnostic validity of the procedure, the indicated level of evidence is Level II-2 based on modified U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. Limitations include a paucity of literature, poor methodologic quality, and very few studies performed utilizing IASP criteria. Cervical discography performed according to the IASP criteria may be a useful tool for evaluating chronic cervical pain, without disc herniation or radiculitis. Based on a modified AHRQ accuracy evaluation and USPSTF level of evidence criteria, this systematic review indicates the strength of evidence as Level II-2 for diagnostic accuracy of cervical discography.
    Pain physician 11/2008; 12(2):305-21. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Disability, societal, and health impact of chronic intractable pain secondary to various failed therapies is a major issue. As advanced therapy, implantable therapies, which include intrathecal devices and spinal cord stimulation systems, are frequently used in managing chronic intractable pain. Thus, continuous infusion of intrathecal medication is one of the methods used for the control of chronic, refractory, cancer, and non-cancer pain. However, despite the high costs of chronic non-cancer pain, it has been claimed that there is a lack of evidence for intrathecal infusion systems and the cost effectiveness of these systems has been questioned in improving pain and function. A systematic review of intrathecal infusion devices for chronic non-cancer pain. To determine the efficacy, utilization, safety, and complications associated with the use of intrathecal infusion devices for long-term management of chronic non-cancer pain. Literature search was performed through EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane databases, and systematic reviews identified from 1966 to December 2008. Studies were then reviewed and assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for randomized trials. The level of evidence was determined using 5 levels of evidence, ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II, based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief < or = one-year and long-term > one-year). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were also utilized. The level of evidence for intrathecal infusion systems indicated either Level II-3 or Level III (limited) based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, lack of quality evidence, and lack of randomized trials. This systematic review illustrates Level II-3 or Level III (limited) evidence for intrathecal infusion systems for long-term relief in chronic non-cancer pain.
    Pain physician 11/2008; 12(2):345-60. · 4.77 Impact Factor
Show more