ARGUMENT AGAINST LUMBAR FUSION FOR LOW BACK PAIN

Henry F. Pallatroni III; Perry A. Ball

doi:10.1055/s-2000-13224

Subscribe to RSS

Please copy the URL and add it into your RSS Feed Reader.

https://www.thieme-connect.de/rss/thieme/en/10.1055-s-00000050.xml

Share / Bookmark

Facebook Linkedin Weibo

Download PDF

Seminars in Neurosurgery 2000; 11(2): 177-182
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-13224

ARGUMENT AGAINST LUMBAR FUSION FOR LOW BACK PAIN

Henry F. Pallatroni, III, Perry A. Ball

Department of Surgery, Section of Neurosurgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Henry F. Pallatroni@Hitchcock.org

Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2000 (online)

Abstract
Full Text
References

Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The diagnosis and treatment of low back pain has always been a challenging undertaking. The etiology of the pain has been postulated to arise from a degenerated, disrupted intervertebral disc. The provocation discogram has become the standard diagnostic method for this entity. The provocation discogram is an imperfect test because of a potentially high false-positive rate and poor positive predictive value. Lumbar arthrodesis has become an accepted means of treating the ``painful disc.'' Surgical series with independent observers have reported favorable outcomes approaching only 50%. Improved methods of diagnosis along with more rigorous evaluation of surgical outcomes are needed if we are to consider lumbar arthrodesis a reasonable treatment alternative for low back pain.

KEYWORD

Lumbar fusion - provocation discogram - low back pain

REFERENCES

1 Crock H. Internal disc disruption: a challenge to disc prolapse fifty years on. Spine . 1985; 11 650-653

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
2 Holt E. The question of lumbar discography. J Bone Joint Surg . 1968; 50 720-726

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
3 Walsh T R, Weinstein J N, Spratt K F, Lehmann T R, Aprill C, Sayre H. Lumbar Discography in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg . 1990; 72 1081-1088

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
4 Carragee E J, Tanner C M, Yang B, Brito J L, Truong T. False-positive findings on lumbar discography. Spine . 1999; 24 2542-2547

Crossref PubMed Search in Google Scholar
5 Simmons J W, Aprill C N, Dwyer A P, Brodsky A E. A reassessment of Holt's data on the question of lumbar discography. Clin Ortho Rel Res . 1988; 237 120-124

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
6 Schwarzer A C, Aprill C N, Derby R, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N. The prevalence and clinical features of internal disc disruption in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine . 1995; 20 1878-1883

Crossref PubMed Search in Google Scholar
7 Rhyne A L, Smith S E, Wood K E, Darden B V. Outcome of unoperated discogram-positive low back pain. Spine . 1995; 20 1997-2001

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
8 Calhoun E, McCall I W, Williams L, Cassar Pullicino N V. Provocation discography as a guide to planning operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg . 1988; 70 267-271

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
9 Newman M H, Grinstead G L. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion for internal disc disruption. Spine . 1992; 17 831-833

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
10 Blumenthal S L, Baker J, Dosset A, Selby D K. The role of anterior lumbar fusion for internal disc disruption. Spine . 1988; 13 566-569

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
11 Kuslich S D, Ulstrom C L, Griffith S L, Ahern J W, Dowdle J D. The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. Spine . 1998; 23 1267-1279

Crossref PubMed Search in Google Scholar
12 Parker L M, Murrell S ER, Boden S D, Horten W C. The outcome of posterolateral fusion in highly selected patients with discogenic low back pain. Spine . 1996; 21 1909-1917

Crossref PubMed Search in Google Scholar
13 Gertzbein S D, Hollopeter M, Hall S D. Analysis of circumferential lumbar fusion outcome in the treatment of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord . 1998; 11 472-478

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
14 Leufven C, Nordwall A. Management of chronic disabling low back pain with 360 degree fusion. Spine . 1999; 24 2042-2045

Crossref PubMed Search in Google Scholar
15 Greenough C G, Peterson M D, Hadlow S, Fraser R D. Instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine . 1998; 23 479-486

Search in Google Scholar
16 Wetzel T, LaRocca S, Lowery G, Aprill C. The treatment of lumbar spine pain syndromes diagnosed by discography. Spine . 1994; 19 792-800

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
17 Hinkley B S, Jaremko M E. Effects of 360-degree lumbar fusion in a workers' compensation population. Spine . 1997; 22 312-323

Crossref PubMed Search in Google Scholar
18 Franklin G M, Haung J, Heyer N J, McKeefrey S P, Picciano J F. Outcome of lumbar fusion in Washington state workers' compensation. Spine . 1994; 19 1897-1904

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
19 Whitecloud T S, Castro F P, Brinker M R, Hartzog C W, Ricciardi J E, Hill C. Degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine treated with intervertebral titanium cages and posterior instrumentation for circumferential fusion. J Spinal Disord . 1998; 11 479-486

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
20 Rahm M D, Hall B B. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord . 1996; 9 392-400

PubMed Search in Google Scholar
21 Deyo R A, Cherkin D, Conrad D, Volinn E. Cost, controversy, crisis: low back pain and the health of the public. Annu Rev Public Health . 1991; 12 141-1561

Crossref PubMed Search in Google Scholar