Manchikanti Laxmaiah, Dunbar Elmer E, Wargo Bradley W, Shah Rinoo V, Derby Richard, Cohen Steven P
Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA.
Pain Physician. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):305-21.
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.
慢性颈部疼痛是一个重大的公共卫生问题。尽管患病率很高,但对于该病症的病因或治疗方法仍缺乏共识。基于对照评估,颈椎间盘、小关节和寰枢关节均被认为是疼痛的根源。颈椎激发性椎间盘造影术,包括椎间盘刺激和形态学评估,常用于区分疼痛性椎间盘与其他潜在的疼痛来源。然而,在缺乏验证和对照结果研究的情况下,该程序仍深陷争议之中。
对颈椎间盘造影术文献进行系统综述。
通过系统综述评估颈椎激发性椎间盘造影术在管理和诊断椎间盘源性疼痛方面的有效性和实用性。
在对文献进行全面检索之后,对选定的研究进行了修改后的医疗保健研究与质量机构(AHRQ)诊断准确性评估。使用从I级到III级共5个证据级别进行定性分析,II级有3个子类别。对评分方案进行了修改以评估诊断准确性。
对文献的系统综述表明,尽管存在假阳性率、缺乏标准化以及各种潜在混杂因素等问题,但颈椎间盘造影术在选择手术候选者和改善治疗结果方面发挥着重要作用。根据采用国际疼痛研究协会(IASP)标准的研究,数据显示患病率在16%至20%之间。基于在颈椎间盘造影术操作过程中采用IASP标准的3项研究,从评估该程序诊断有效性的研究中得出的证据,根据修改后的美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)标准,指定的证据级别为II-2级。
局限性包括文献数量少、方法学质量差以及极少有研究采用IASP标准进行。
根据IASP标准进行的颈椎间盘造影术可能是评估无椎间盘突出或神经根炎的慢性颈部疼痛的有用工具。基于修改后的AHRQ准确性评估和USPSTF证据级别标准,该系统综述表明颈椎间盘造影术诊断准确性的证据强度为II-2级。