The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
has issued guidelines that state fusion for non-specific low back
pain should only be performed as part of a randomised controlled
trial, and that lumbar disc replacement should not be performed.
Thus, spinal fusion and disc replacement will no longer be routine
forms of treatment for patients with low back pain. This annotation
considers the evidence upon which these guidelines are based. Cite this article:
We conducted a prospective follow-up MRI study
of originally asymptomatic healthy subjects to clarify the development
of Modic changes in the cervical spine over a ten-year period and
to identify related factors. Previously, 497 asymptomatic healthy
volunteers with no history of cervical trauma or surgery underwent
MRI. Of these, 223 underwent a second MRI at a mean follow-up of
11.6 years (10 to 12.7). These 223 subjects comprised 133 men and 100
women with a mean age at second MRI of 50.5 years (23 to 83). Modic
changes were classified as not present and types 1 to 3. Changes
in Modic types over time and relationships between Modic changes
and progression of degeneration of the disc or clinical symptoms
were evaluated. A total of 31 subjects (13.9%) showed Modic changes at
follow-up: type 1 in nine, type 2 in 18, type 3 in two, and types In the cervical spine over a ten-year period
Between January 1990 and December 2000 we carried out 226 SB Charité III disc replacements for lumbar disc degeneration in 160 patients. They were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 79 months (31 to 161) to determine the clinical and radiological outcome. The clinical results were collected by an independent observer, who was not involved in patient selection, treatment or follow-up, using a combination of outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index. Pain was recorded using a visual analogue score, and the most recent radiographs were reviewed. Survival of the device was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and showed a cumulative survival of 35% at 156 months when radiological failure was taken as the endpoint. The mean improvement in the Oswestry disability index scores after disc replacement was 14% (6% to 21%) and the mean improvement in the pain score was 1.6 (0.46 to 2.73), both falling below the clinically significant threshold. Removal of the implant was required in 12 patients, four because of implant failure. These poor results indicate that further use of this implant is not justified.
Discogenic low back pain is a common cause of disability, but its pathogenesis is poorly understood. We collected 19 specimens of lumbar intervertebral discs from 17 patients with discogenic low back pain during posterior lumbar interbody fusion, 12 from physiologically ageing discs and ten from normal control discs. We investigated the histological features and assessed the immunoreactive activity of neurofilament (NF200) and neuropeptides such as substance P (SP) and vasoactive-intestinal peptide (VIP) in the nerve fibres. The distinct histological characteristic of the painful disc was the formation of a zone of vascularised granulation tissue from the nucleus pulposus to the outer part of the annulus fibrosus along the edges of the fissures. SP-, NF- and VIP-immunoreactive nerve fibres in the painful discs were more extensive than in the control discs. Growth of nerves deep into the annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus was observed mainly along the zone of granulation tissue in the painful discs. This suggests that the zone of granulation tissue with extensive innervation along the tears in the posterior part of the painful disc may be responsible for causing the pain of