Spinal Diagnostics and Treatment Center, 901 Campus Drive, Daly City, CA 94015, USA.
Pain Med. 2011 Jan;12(1):18-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00990.x. Epub 2010 Oct 28.
The study compares the rate of positive discograms using an automated versus a manual pressure-controlled injection devise and compares the pressure and volume values at various pressures and initial evoked pain and 6/10 or greater evoked pain.
A retrospective study prospectively collected patient study data used in a prior prospective study and with prospectively collected data which is routinely collected per our institutional standardized audit protocol. Two custom-built disc manometers (automated injection speed control; manual injection speed control) were sequentially employed during provocation discography in 510 discs of 151 consecutive patients. Two hundred thirty-seven discs of 67 patients with chronic low back pain were evaluated using the automated manometer (automated group) and 273 discs of 84 patients were evaluated with a manual manometer (manual group).
No significant differences in positive discogram rates were found between the automated and manual groups (32.1% vs 32.6% per disc, respectively, P>0.05). No significant differences in low-pressure positive discogram rates were found (16.0% vs 15.0% per disc, automated group versus manual group, respectively, P>0.05). However, there were significantly increased volumes and lower pressures at initial and "bad" pain provocation.
The study results found equivalent positive discogram rates following a series of pressure-controlled discography using either an automated or manual pressure devise. There were, however significant increases in volume at both initial onset of evoked pain and at 6/10 pain when using the automated injection devise that may have caused the observed lower opening pressure and lower pressure values at initial evoked pain. Assuming increased volumes are innocuous, automated injection is inherently more controlled and may better reduce unintended and often unrecorded spurious high dynamic pressure peaks thereby reducing conscious and unconscious operator bias.
本研究比较了使用自动与手动压力控制注射设备进行阳性椎间盘造影的比率,并比较了在不同压力下的压力和容积值、初始诱发疼痛以及 6/10 或更高诱发疼痛时的压力和容积值。
回顾性研究前瞻性收集了先前前瞻性研究中使用的患者研究数据,并前瞻性收集了符合我们机构标准化审核协议的常规数据。在 151 例连续患者的 510 个椎间盘进行诱发性椎间盘造影时,先后使用了两个定制的椎间盘压力计(自动注射速度控制;手动注射速度控制)。237 个椎间盘(67 例慢性下腰痛患者)使用自动压力计进行评估(自动组),273 个椎间盘(84 例患者)使用手动压力计进行评估(手动组)。
自动组和手动组阳性椎间盘造影的阳性率无显著差异(每椎间盘分别为 32.1%和 32.6%,P>0.05)。低压力阳性椎间盘造影的阳性率也无显著差异(每椎间盘分别为 16.0%和 15.0%,自动组与手动组,P>0.05)。然而,在初始和“不良”疼痛诱发时,容积显著增加,压力显著降低。
本研究结果发现,在使用自动或手动压力设备进行一系列压力控制椎间盘造影后,阳性椎间盘造影的阳性率相当。然而,在使用自动注射设备时,初始诱发疼痛和 6/10 疼痛时的容积显著增加,这可能导致观察到的初始诱发疼痛时的开口压力和较低压力值降低。假设增加的容积是无害的,自动注射更具可控性,可能更好地减少意外和经常未记录的虚假高动态压力峰值,从而减少有意识和无意识的操作者偏见。