Diskojenik bel ağrısında diskografinin tanısal değeri

Amaç: Lomber diskografi dejeneratif disk hastalığının tanısında popüler hale gelmiştir. Diskografi temelde dejeneratif disk hastalığına bağlı semptomatik disk seviyesini göstermek için kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı diskojenik bel ağrılarının tanısında diskografinin etkinliğini ortaya koymaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Diskojenik bel ağrısı olan 42 olguda 61 seviyeye diskografi yapılmıştır. Diskografinin sonucu Modifiye Dallas Sınıflamasına göre, ağrının şiddeti ise VAS ölçeğine göre incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Olguların 31ʼinde (% 74) diskografi pozitif, 11ʼinde (% 26) negatif olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Diskografi iki seviyede (% 3,2) I. derece, dokuz seviyede (% 14,7) II. derece, beş seviyede (% 8,1) III. derece, 15 seviyede (% 24,5) IV. derece ve 30 seviyede (% 49,1) V. derece olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Diskografi 32 seviyede (% 52,4) ağrıya neden olmuştur. Diskografi pozitif olarak değerlendirilen 18 hasta opere edilmiştir. 17 (% 94,4) olguda VAS ölçeklemesine göre bel ağrısında düzelme azalma belirlenmişken, bir olguda (% 5,6) ağrıda değişiklik olmamıştır (p0.05). Diskografisi negatif olan 11 olgunun (% 26.2) tümünde konservatif tedavi uygulanmıştır. Konservatif tedavi ile hastaların ağrı düzeylerinde 6 hastada (% 53) artış, 3 hastada (% 27) azalma ve 2 hastada (%20) ise aynı düzeyde kalmıştır (p>0.05). Sonuç: Çalışmamız diskografinin diskojenik bel ağrılarının tanısında etkin olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır

The roleof discography in diagnosis of discogenic low back pain

Objective: Lumbar discography has been popular diagnostic tool in degenerative disc disease. It is mainly used to identify symptomatic disk level in discogenic low back pain. The aim of this study is to study diagnostic value of discography in patients with discogenic lower back pain. Materials and Methods: 61 levels lumbar discographies were performed in 42 cases with discogenic low back pain. Results of discography were graded according to Modified Dallas Classification. Pain severity was assessed using VAS score. Results: Discography was evaluated as positive in 31 cases (74 %), and negative in 11 cases (26 %). Discography was assessed as grade I two levels (3.2 %), grade II in nine levels (14.7 %), grade III in five levels (8.1 %), grade IV in 15 levels (24.5 %), and grade V in 30 levels (49.1 %). Discography provoked pain in 32 levels (52.4 %). Eighteen patients with positive discography were operated. While improvement/reducing of the low back pain VAS score was observed in 17 cases (94.4 %), no change was observed in one case (5.6 %) (p<0.05). When 13 patients who were not operated despite the positive discography are considered, three (23 %) of these experienced worsening of the low back pain VAS, six (46 %) had no change in VAS score, and four (31 %) had improvement in the low back pain VAS (p>0.05). Conservative therapy was administered to all the 11 cases (26.2%) with negative discography results. With the conservative therapy, increases in pain level were observed in 6 patients (53%), reducing of the pain was observed in 3 patients (27%), and level remained the same in 2 patients (20%). Conclusion: Discography was found to be effective in diagnosis of discogenic low back pain.


1.American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non- Anesthesiologists: Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia 214 by non- anesthesiologist. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 1004-1017.

2. Benzon HT, Raja SN, Molloy RE. Essentials of pain medicine and regional anesthesia. W.B. Saunders/Churchill Livingstone, New York, 2004.

3. Botwin KP, Brown LA, Durgadas S, Savarese R. Interventional spine. Side effects and complications of injection procedures: anticipation and management. Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2008.

4. Carragee EJ, Tanner CM, Young B. False positive findings on lumbar discography: reliability of subjective concordance assessment during provocative disc injection. Spine 1999; 24: 2542-2547.

5. Carragee EJ, Tanner CM, Khurana S. The rates of false-positive lumbar discography in select patients without low back symptoms. Spine 2000; 25: 1373-1381.

6. Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Carragee JM. Low- pressure positive discography in subjects asymptomatic of significant low back pain illness. Spine 2006; 31: 505-509.

7. Carragee EJ, Lincoln T, Parmar VS. A gold standard evaluation of the “discogenic pain” diagnosis as determined by provocative discography. Spine 2006; 31: 2115-2123.

8. Carragee EJ, Don AS, Hurwitz EL, Cuellar JM, Carrino J, Herzog R. A ten-year matched cohort study, ISSLS prize winner: does discography cause accelerated progression of degeneration changes in the lumbar disc. Spine 2009; 34: 2338 –2345.

9. Cohen SP, Larkin TM, Barna SA. Lumbar discography: a comprehensive review of outcome studies, diagnostic accuracy, and principles. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2005; 30:163- 183.

10. Cohen SP, Williams S, Kurihara C. Nucleoplasty with or without intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) as a treatment for lumbar herniated disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18: 119-124.

11. Colhoun E, McCall IW, Williams L, Cassar Pullicino VN. Provocation discography as a guide to planning operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg 1988; 70-B: 267-271.

12. Collis J, Gardner W. Lumbar discography: an analysis of 1000 cases. J Neurosurg 1962; 19: 452-461.

13. Collins CD, Stack JP, OʼConnell DJ, Walsh M, McManus FP, Redmond OM. The role of discography in lumbar disc disease: a comparative study of magnetic resonance imaging and discography. Clin Radiol 1990; 42: 252-257.

14. Currier BL, Banovac K, Eismont FJ. Gentamycin penetration into the normal rabbit nucleuspulposus. Spine 1994; 19: 2614–2618.

15. DeSeze S, Levernieux J. Les accidents de la discographie. Rev Rheum Mal Osteoartic 1952; 19: 1027–1033.

16. Eismont FJ, Wiesel SW, Brighton CT, Rothman RH. Antibiotic penetration into rabbit nucleus pulposus. Spine 1987; 12: 254–256.

17. Esses SI, Botsford DJ, Kostuik JP. The role of external spinal skeletal fixation in the assessment of low-back disorders. Spine 1989; 14: 594-601.

18. Feinberg S. The place of discography in radiology as based on 2320 cases. Am J Radiol 1964; 92: 1275-1281.

19. Fernstrom U. A discographical study of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs. Acta Chir Scand 1960; 1: 258–260.

20. Gill K, Blumenthal SL. Functional results after anterior lumbar fusion at L5-S1 in patients with normal and abnormal MRI scans. Spine 1992;17: 940- 944.

21. Goldie I. Intervertebral disc changes after discography. Acta Chir Scand 1957; 113: 438–439.

22. Gronblad M, Virri J, Tolonen J. A controlled immunohistochemical study of inflammatory cells in disc herniation tissue. Spine 1994;19: 2744–2751.

23. Grubb SA, Lipscomb HJ, Guilford WB. The relative value of lumbar roentgenograms, metrizamide myelography, and discography in the assessment of patients with chronic low- back syndrome. Spine 1987; 12: 282–286.

24. Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD. Contemporary concepts in spine care lumbar discography. Spine 1995; 20: 2048–2059.

25. Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD. Lumbar discography. Spine J 2003; 3: 11–27.

26. Holt EP Jr. Fallacy of cervical discography. Report of 50 cases in normal subjects. J Am Med Assoc 1964; 188: 799-801.

27. Kapural L, Cata JP. Complications of percutaneous techniques used in the diagnosis and treatment of discogenic lower back pain. Tech Reg Anesth Pain Manag 2007; 11: 157–163.

28. Kaner T, Sasani M, Oktenoglu T, Coşar M, Özer AF. Utilizing dynamic rods with dynamic screws in the surgical treatment of chronical instability: a prospective clinical study. J Turk Neurosurgery 2009; 19: 319-326.

29. Laslett M, Öberg B, Aprill C.N, McDonald B. Centralization as a predictor of provocation discography results in chronic low back pain, and the influence of disability and distress on diagnostic power. Spine J 2005; 5: 370–380.

30. Lawhorne TW, Girardi FP, Mina CA, Pappou I, Cammisa FP. Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: potential impact of dynamic stabilization based on imaging analysis. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 815–822.

31. Lindblom K. Diagnostic puncture of intervertebral disks in sciatica. Acta Orthop Scand 1948; 17: 231–239.

32. Madan S, Gundanna M, Harley JM, Boeree NR, Sampson M. Does provocative discography screening of discogenic back pain improve surgical outcome? J Spinal Disord Tech 2002; 15: 245-251.

33. Manchikanti L, Glaser SE, Wolfer L, Derby R, Cohen PS. Systematic review of lumbar discography as a diagnostic test for chronic low back pain. Pain Physician 2009; 12: 541- 559.

34. Massie WK, Stevens DB. A critical evaluation of discography. J Bone Joint Surg 1967; 49-A: 1243–1254.

35. McCulloch JA, Waddell G. Lateral lumbar discography. Br J Rad 1978; 51: 498-502.

36. Medtronic.Available at: http://www.discyphor.com/. Accessed March 30, 2009.

37. Nagy AM, Sami M. Discography and discogenic pain. Tech Reg Anesth Pain Manag 2000; 4: 126-131.

38. Osti OL, Fraser RD, Vernon-Roberts B. Discitis after discography. The role of prophylactic antibiotics. J Bone and Joint Surg 1990; 72-B: 271–274.

39. Peng B, Chen J, Kuang Z, Li D, Pang X, Zhang X. Diagnosis and Surgical treatment of back pain originating from endplate. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 1035-1040.

40. Rathmell JP, Lake T, Ramundo MB. Infectious risks of chronic pain treatments: injection therapy, surgical implants, and intradiscal techniques. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2006; 4: 346–352.

41. Schreck RI, Manion WL, Kambin P, Sohn M. Nucleus pulposus pulmonary embolism. A case report. Spine 1995; 20: 2463–2466.

42. Scuderi GJ, Greenberg SS, Banovac K. Penetration of glycopeptide antibiotics in nucleus pulposus. Spine 1993; 18: 2039–2042.

43. Sharma SK, Jones JO, Zeballos PP, Irwin SA, Martin TW. The prevention of discitis during discography. Spine J 2009; 9: 936–943.

44. Shin DA, Kim HI, Jung JH. Diagnostic relevance of pressure-controlled discography. J Korean Med Sci 2006; 21: 911-916.

45. Southern EP, Fye MA, Panjabi MM, Patel T, Cholewicki J. Disk degeneration. A human cadaveric study correlating magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry. Spine 2000; 25: 2171–2175.

46. Tallroth K, Soini J, Antti-Poika I. Premedication and short term complications in iohexol discography. Ann Chir Gynical 1991; 80: 49–53.

47. Vaga S, Brayda-Bruno M, Perona F, Fornari M, Raimondi MT, Petruzzi M, Grava G, Costa F, Caiani EG, Lamartina C. Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 40–48.

48. Vanharanta H, Sachs BL, Spivey MA, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Rashbaum RF. The relationship of pain provocation to lumbar disc deterioration as seen by CT/discography. Spine 1987; 12: 295-298.

49. Vanharanta H, Sachs BL, Ohnmeiss DD, Aprill C, Spivey M, Guyer RD. Pain provocation and disc deterioration by age. A CT/discography study in a low-back pain population. Spine 1989; 14: 420-423.

50. Vikram P. Disagnostic Modalities for Low Back Pain. Pain Med 2004; 2: 145-153.

51. Walsh T, Weinstein J, Spratt K. Lumbar discography in normal subjects: a controlled prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72- A: 1081-1088,

52. Walters R, Rahmat R, Fraser R, Moore R. Preventing and treating discitis: cefazolin penetration in bovine lumbar intervertebral disc. Eur Spine J 2006; 15: 1397–1403.

53. Willems PC, Jacobs W, Duinkerke ES, De Kleuver M. Lumbar discography: should we use prophylactic antibiotics? A study of 435 consecutive discograms and a systematic review of the literature. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 243–247.

54. Willems PC, Elmans L, Anderson PG, van der Schaaf DB, de Kleuver M. Provocative discography and lumbar fusion: is preoperative assessment of adjacent discs useful? Spine 2007; 32: 1094-1099.

55. Wolfer LR, Derby R, Lee JE. Systematic review of lumbar provocation discography in asymptomatic subjects with a meta-analysis of false-positive rates. Pain Physician 2008; 11: 513-538.

Kaynak Göster