Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Virginia Commonwealth University Spine Center, Virginia Commonwealth University/Medical College of Virginia Hospitals, Richmond, Virginia 23235, USA.
Pain Med. 2011 May;12(5):732-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01098.x. Epub 2011 Apr 11.
To estimate the prevalence of lumbar internal disc disruption, zygapohyseal joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, and soft tissue irritation by fusion hardware in post-fusion low back pain patients compared with non-fused patients utilizing diagnostic spinal procedures.
Retrospective chart review.
University spine center.
Patients presenting to a community-based, multidisciplinary, academic spine center (65.9% female, mean age 54.4 years, median pain duration 12 months).
Charts of consecutive low back pain cases completing diagnostic spinal procedures including provocation discography and zygapohyseal joint, sacroiliac joint, and fusion hardware blockade were retrospectively reviewed.
Based on the results of discography and/or diagnostic blockades, subjects were classified with internal disc disruption, zygapohyseal joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, or fusion hardware related pain.
The diagnoses of 28 fusion cases identified from 170 low back pain patients undergoing diagnostic procedures included 12 with sacroiliac joint pain, seven with internal disc disruption, five with zygapohyseal joint pain, and four due to soft tissue irritation from fusion hardware. No significant differences were noted in zygapohyseal joint mediated pain with and without fusion history. Mean ages of patients were similar with and without fusion history for cases diagnosed as internal disc disruption.
In patients' recalcitrant to non-interventional care, the sacroiliac joint is the most likely source of low back pain after lumbar fusion followed by internal disc disruption, zygapohyseal joint pain, and soft tissue irritation due to fusion hardware. Sacroiliac joint pain is more common after fusion, while internal disc disruption is more common in non-fusion patients.
通过诊断性脊柱操作,与未融合患者相比,评估融合后腰痛患者的腰椎间盘内部破裂、关节突关节疼痛、骶髂关节疼痛和融合硬件引起的软组织刺激的患病率。
回顾性图表审查。
大学脊柱中心。
来自社区为基础的多学科学术脊柱中心的连续腰痛患者(65.9%为女性,平均年龄 54.4 岁,中位数疼痛持续时间 12 个月)。
回顾性审查完成诊断性脊柱操作(包括激发性椎间盘造影术和关节突关节、骶髂关节和融合硬件阻滞)的连续腰痛病例图表。
根据椎间盘造影和/或诊断性阻滞的结果,将受试者分为椎间盘内部破裂、关节突关节疼痛、骶髂关节疼痛或融合硬件相关疼痛。
在接受诊断性操作的 170 例腰痛患者中,28 例融合病例的诊断包括 12 例骶髂关节疼痛、7 例椎间盘内部破裂、5 例关节突关节疼痛和 4 例融合硬件引起的软组织刺激。有和没有融合史的患者关节突关节介导的疼痛无显著差异。对于诊断为椎间盘内部破裂的患者,有无融合史的患者平均年龄相似。
在非介入治疗无效的患者中,骶髂关节是腰椎融合后腰痛最可能的来源,其次是椎间盘内部破裂、关节突关节疼痛和融合硬件引起的软组织刺激。融合后骶髂关节疼痛更常见,而未融合患者椎间盘内部破裂更常见。