Thoracic Disc Disease

Author(s):  
Ankur P. Dave

This chapter discusses thoracic disc disease (TDD), an overlooked condition affecting many chronic pain patients. TDD is rare and often misdiagnosed as cervical or lumbar disc disease. Given the various causes for mid-back pain, a thorough understanding of TDD is vital for the appropriate management of this patient population. This section will discuss the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation (including imaging techniques), and treatment options for this condition. The chapter emphasizes the importance of considering TDD in the differential diagnosis for patients suffering from chronic mid-back pain.

Author(s):  
Daniel Kline ◽  
Michael DePalma

This chapter focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of discogenic low back pain. Discogenic low back pain is a prevalent condition that affects a large percentage of the adult population. Diagnosis and treatment of this condition remain challenging despite ongoing advances. Provocation lumbar discography has allowed for more accurate identification of painful discs than conventional imaging techniques. Current research focusing on regenerative treatment options may hold promise for the future.


1977 ◽  
Vol 15 (25) ◽  
pp. 98-99

Persistent low back pain is often ascribed to lumbar disc disease. Frequently no objective evidence supports this and the management is designed solely to alleviate symptoms. Inflammatory arthritis, metabolic bone disease, ligamentous injuries, metastases, infections, uterine disease, retroperitoneal lesions involving the lumbo-sacral plexus, renal disease, intraspinal lesions and depression may also cause low back pain and should be considered in the management of the patient. Occasionally appropriate special investigations are necessary. Lumbar disc lesions may cause acute, sub-acute or chronic symptoms and the management differs accordingly.


Author(s):  
Bahar Dernek ◽  
Suavi Aydoğmuş ◽  
İbrahim Ulusoy ◽  
Tahir Mutlu Duymuş ◽  
Sedef Ersoy ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Low back pain affects 80% of people worldwide at least once in a lifetime and reduces the quality of life and causes absence from work. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pain and functional status of patients with lumbar disc disease who received blind caudal epidural injections (CEI) for pain relief. METHODS: The records of 107 patients who had been given CEI between September 2017 and January 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The inclusion criteria were age > 18 years, > 3-month history of low back pain, and diagnosis of lumbar disc disease by magnetic resonance imaging. The epidural injection solution consisted of 2 mL of betamethasone sodium and 8 mL saline. Follow-up examinations were conducted 3 and 6 months post-injection and the patients were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: The most common disc pathology was at the L4–L5 level. The VAS and ODI scores indicated significantly reduced pain at 3 and 6 months compared with the pre-injection baseline. Two patients experienced total anesthesia and paresis of the lower limbs, but recovered fully after 2 weeks. Blood was aspirated during the injection in two patients, but second-attempt injections were successful in both cases. No other complications were observed. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the blind method is safe for administering CEI to patients with chronic low back pain in the absence of radiological screening and results in significant pain relief with improved functional capacity.


Spine ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 416-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rong-Kuo Lyu ◽  
Hong-Shiu Chang ◽  
Lok-Ming Tang ◽  
Sien-Tsong Chen

2000 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan R. Durham ◽  
Peter P. Sun ◽  
Leslie N. Sutton

Object. This outcome study was undertaken to investigate the long-term results obtained in surgically treated pediatric patients with lumbar disc disease by using standardized medical outcome scales and clinical follow-up examination. Methods. Twenty nine patients 17 years of age or younger underwent surgery between 1968 and 1998 for lumbar disc disease. The follow-up period ranged from 4 months to 30.5 years (mean 8.5 years). Outcome scores (health profiles) were generated using a standardized medical outcome scale, the Short Form health survey questionnaire (SF-36), and a condition-specific back pain outcome scale. Clinical follow-up data were obtained by telephone interview. The health profile of the study population closely paralleled that of the normal population and was distinctly different from the health profile of adults with low-back pain. Only physical functioning, as measured by a scale of the SF-36, was found to be impaired in a subset of the study population. The rate of reoperation was 24% over the course of the follow-up period. In contrast to similar studies in adults, there were no identifiable predictive factors for either reoperation or poor outcome. Conclusions. Lumbar disc disease in the pediatric population does not appear to lead to chronic complaints of back pain, and it does not appear to have a negative impact on overall health. This finding suggests that pediatric lumbar disc disease may be a separate entity distinct from adult lumbar disc disease, and therefore, the same conclusions regarding long-term outcome cannot be applied to the pediatric population.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5;17 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E599-E608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prof. Dong Ah Shin

Background: Percutaneous epidural neuroplasty (PEN) is a minimally invasive intervention designed to treat neck, back, and low back pain. The efficacy of lumbar PEN has been relatively well investigated, but clinical effectiveness according to catheter position has not yet been established. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between the ventral and dorsal positions of the catheter tip during lumbar PEN procedures using a retrospective review series. Methods: A total of 303 patients with back pain from single-level lumbar disc disease with and without radiculopathy were included in this study. In all patients, an attempt was made to place the catheter tip in the ventral position to maximize theoretical clinical improvement; however, several catheters failed to reach the desired position. Patients were assigned to 2 groups after lumbar PEN procedures were completed: those with catheters in the ventral position (Ventral group) and those with catheters in the dorsal position (Dorsal group). Clinical outcomes were assessed according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for back pain and leg pain at 0, 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Results: The only demographic difference observed between the 2 groups (Ventral and Dorsal groups) was an elongated symptom duration in the Dorsal group compared to the Ventral group (16.1 vs. 9.4 months, P = 0.013). The VAS (back) scores during the follow-up period (1, 3, and 6 months) were similar between the 2 groups. In one area of the VAS scoring (leg), the Ventral group showed a similar effect at postoperative one month compared to the Dorsal group, but significantly improved at postoperative 3 and 6 months (1.3 and 0.9 in ventral group, and 1.9 and 1.4 in dorsal group, respectively; P = 0.002 and 0.010). Odom’s criteria were also significantly improved over 6 months in the Ventral group compared to the Dorsal group. Limitations: This study was a retrospective analysis with a relatively short follow-up duration was not a randomized, controlled study. Therefore, the clinical effects of the catheter position could be confounded by other variables. Conclusion: In this short-term follow-up study, the effects of lumbar PEN on VAS scores were different according to the position of the catheter tip in patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation. Better outcomes in the Ventral group may have been achieved by more localized treatment with a selective block in the epidural space closer to the dorsal root ganglion and ventral aspect of the nerve root. Key words: Lumbar disc disease, pain management, percutaneous epidural neuroplasty, catheter position, dorsal, ventral


Author(s):  
Hussain Sahib Hussain Al-Yaqoobi Akeel Muslim Kadhim Alakaishy ◽  
Amar Saeed Rashid Hejaju

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document