Zygapophysial joint blocks in chronic low back pain: A test of Revel's model as a screening test

Department of Health and Society: Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköpings Universitet, SE-581581-85, Sweden.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (Impact Factor: 1.72). 11/2004; 5(1):43. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-5-43
Source: DOAJ


Only controlled blocks are capable of confirming the zygapophysial joints (ZJ) as the pain generator in LBP patients. However, previous workers have found that a cluster of clinical signs ("Revel's criteria"), may be valuable in predicting the results of an initial screening ZJ block. It was suggested that these clinical findings are unsuitable for diagnosis, but may be of value in selecting patients for diagnostic blocks of the lumbar ZJ's. To constitute evidence in favour of a clinical management strategy, these results need confirmation. This study evaluates the utility of 'Revel's criteria' as a screening tool for selection of chronic low back pain patients for controlled ZJ diagnostic blocks.
This study utilized a prospective blinded concurrent reference standard related validity design. Consecutive chronic LBP patients completed pain drawings, psychosocial distress and disability questionnaires, received a clinical examination and lumbar zygapophysial blocks. Two reference standards were evaluated simultaneously: 1. 75% reduction of pain on a visual analogue scale (replication of previous work), and 2. abolition of the dominant or primary pain. Using "Revel's criteria" as predictors, logistic regression analyses were used to test the model. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios for selected variables were calculated for the two proposed clinical strategies.
Earlier results were not replicated. Sensitivity of "Revel's criteria" was low sensitivity (<17%), and specificity high (approximately 90%). Absence of pain with cough or sneeze just reached significance (p = 0.05) within one model.
"Revel's criteria" are unsuitable as a clinical screening test to select chronic LBP patients for initial ZJ blocks. However, the criteria may have use in identifying a small subset (11%) of patients likely to respond to the initial block (specificity 93%).

Download full-text


Available from: Mark Laslett,
  • Source
    • "The prevalence of lumbar facet disease varies widely according to age, medical history, and patient occupation [2,13,14]. Screening criteria [4] are not suitable for predicting treatment outcomes [15]. Controlled diagnostic blocks are the method of choice for diagnosing facet joint disease [2,4,16,17]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Facet joint disease plays a major role in axial low-back pain. Few diagnostic tests and imaging methods for identifying this condition exist. Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is reported that it has a high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing facet disease. We prospectively evaluated the use of bone scintigraphy with SPECT for the identification of patients with low back pain who would benefit from medial branch block. SPECT was performed on 33 patients clinically suspected of facet joint disease. After SPECT, an ultrasound guided medial branch block was performed on all patients. On 28 SPECT-positive patients, medial branch block was performed based on the SPECT findings. On 5 negative patients, medial branch block was performed based on clinical findings. For one month, we evaluated the patients using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index. SigmaStat and paired t-tests were used to analyze patient data and compare results. Of the 33 patients, the ones who showed more than 50% reduction in VAS score were assigned 'responders'. SPECT positive patients showed a better response to medial branch blocks than negative patients, but no changes in the Oswestry disability index were seen. SPECT is a sensitive tool for the identification of facet joint disease and predicting the response to medial branch block.
    The Korean journal of pain 06/2011; 24(2):81-6. DOI:10.3344/kjp.2011.24.2.81
  • Source
    • "The scores for the MSPQ and the Zung Depression Inventory (Table 4) are comparable with other studies of similar cohorts; (Mean MSPQ: 5.6 [37], 9.7 [38], 6.7 [39]); (Mean Modified Zung Depression Index: 24.9 [37], 29.7 [38], 23.7 [39]). However, there are many ways of analysing and reporting data for psychological problems. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rise in disability due to back pain has been exponential with escalating medical and societal costs. The relative contribution of individual prognostic indicators to the pattern of recovery remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic value of demographic, psychosocial, employment and clinical factors on outcome in patients with low back pain A prospective cohort study with six-month follow-up was undertaken at a multidisciplinary back pain clinic in central London employing physiotherapists, osteopaths, clinical psychologists and physicians, receiving referrals from 123 general practitioners. Over a twelve-month period, 593 consecutive patients referred from general practice with simple low back pain were recruited. A baseline questionnaire was developed to elicit information on potential prognostic variables. The primary outcome measures were change in 24-item Roland Morris disability questionnaire score at six months as a measure of low back related functional disability and the physical functioning scale of the SF-36, adjusted for baseline scores. Roland Morris scores improved by 3.8 index points (95% confidence interval 3.23 to 4.32) at six months and SF-36 physical functioning score by 10.7 points (95% confidence interval 8.36 to 12.95). Ten factors were linked to outcome yet in a multiple regression model only two remained predictive. Those with episodic rather than continuous pain were more likely to have recovered at six months (odds ratio 2.64 confidence interval 1.25 to 5.60), while those that classified themselves as non-white were less likely to have recovered (0.41 confidence interval 0.18 to 0.96). Analysis controlling for confounding variables, demonstrated that participants showed greater improvement if their episodes of pain during the previous year were short-lived while those with Middle Eastern, North African and Chinese ethnicity demonstrated minimal improvement. The study did not support previous findings that a wide range of factors could predict outcome.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 10/2010; 11:236. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-11-236 · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The diagnosis of facet joint-mediated pain is no exception. The history, physical examination and imaging studies cannot consistently identify facet joint pain [14, 81–86]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Low back pain is the most common pain symptom experienced by American adults and is the second most common reason for primary care physician visits. There are many structures in the lumbar spine that can serve as pain generators and often the etiology of low back pain is multifactorial. However, the facet joint has been increasingly recognized as an important cause of low back pain. Facet joint pain can be diagnosed with local anesthetic blocks of the medial branches or of the facet joints themselves. Subsequent radiofrequency lesioning of the medial branches can provide more long-term pain relief. Despite some of the pitfalls associated with facet joint blocks, they have been shown to be valid, safe, and reliable as a diagnostic tool. Medial branch denervation has shown some promise for the sustained control of lumbar facet joint-mediated pain, but at this time, there is insufficient evidence that it is a wholly efficacious treatment option. Developing a universal algorithm for evaluating facet joint-mediated pain and standard procedural techniques may facilitate the performance of larger outcome studies. This review article provides an overview of the anatomy, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of facet joint-mediated pain.
    Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 04/2009; 2(1):15-24. DOI:10.1007/s12178-008-9039-y
Show more