A prospective study of nerve root infiltration in the diagnosis of sciatica. A comparison with radiculography, computed tomography, and operative findings

Fifty nerve root infiltration studies were evaluated prospectively in a consecutive series of 50 patients referred to the Sheffield Problem Back Clinic with complicated back problems. All were over 35 years of age (mean, 51 years). Ten (20%) demonstrated abnormal segmentation of the lumbar spine. Sixteen (32%) had undergone previous surgery. Before nerve root infiltration all patients were investigated by radiculography and computed tomography. Nerve root infiltration identified two types of response. In 20 patients, infiltration reproduced the symptomatic pain, which then was abolished by local anesthetic--the positive result. These patients were considered suitable for surgery. One patient in this group had spontaneous resolution of pain and thus did not undergo operative treatment. In 30 patients, infiltration did not reproduce the symptomatic pain regardless of the level studied, or only partially reproduced the pain at two or more levels--the negative result. Radiculography and computed tomography in these patients also was inconsistent. This group were considered unsuitable for surgery. In those patients undergoing surgical decompression, nerve root infiltration correctly identified the symptomatic level in 18 of the 19. Computed tomography and radiculography identified the level in 14 and 12 patients, respectively.     

Dorsal root ganglionectomy for failed back surgery syndrome: a 5-year follow-up study.

Dorsal root ganglionectomy has been suggested as a method for the treatment of chronic intractable radicular pain, with theoretical advantages over dorsal rhizotomy, which does not interrupt ventral root afferents. The indications for these procedures in patients with persistent pain following lumbosacral spine surgery are not well established. Long-term results have been reported infrequently, and no published series has a mean follow-up period of more than 30 months. The authors have reviewed their experience with a series of 13 patients with failed back surgery syndrome, in whom dorsal root ganglionectomy was performed. Patients were selected on the basis of clinical presentation and diagnostic root blocks suggesting a monoradicular pain syndrome. Follow-up data were obtained at a mean of 5.5 years following dorsal root ganglionectomy. Follow-up interviews to assess outcome were conducted by a disinterested third party. Treatment "success" (at least 50% sustained relief of pain and patient satisfaction with the result) was recorded in two patients at 2 years after surgery and in none at 5.5 years. Equivocal success (at least 50% relief, without clearcut patient satisfaction) was recorded in one patient at 2 and at 5.5 years postoperatively. Improvements in activities of daily living were recorded in a minority of patients. Loss of sensory and motor function was reported frequently by patients. A minority of patients had reduced or eliminated analgesic intake. These results suggest that dorsal root ganglionectomy has a limited role in the management of failed back surgery syndrome, and that methods to select patients to receive this procedure should be refined or alternative approaches should be considered.     

Patient satisfaction with spinal cord stimulation for predominant complaints of chronic, intractable low back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Results of subsequent surgical intervention in patients with intractable pain after lumbar spine surgery are typically worse than for initial surgery, particularly in those with predominant complaints of back pain rather than lower extremity pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been found to yield good results in patients with primary complaints of intractable lower extremity pain. Technological advances have broadened the indications for this treatment. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction after SCS in the treatment of patients with predominant complaints of chronic, intractable, low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Data were collected from retrospective chart review and patient follow-up questionnaire. Patients were treated at a spine specialty center. PATIENT SAMPLE: The study group consisted of the consecutive series of our first 41 patients who underwent SCS for predominant complaints of low back pain. The mean symptom duration was 82.9 months, and the mean age was 47.9 years (range, 28-83 years). All but three patients had previously undergone lumbar spine surgery (mean, 2.3 prior surgeries). OUTCOME MEASURES: At the time of follow-up (5.5-19 months after SCS implantation), patients completed questionnaires assessing their satisfaction with their outcome, if they would have the procedure again knowing what their outcome would be and if they would recommend SCS to someone with similar problems. In determining outcome, a negative response was assigned for patients who had the device removed. A worst-case analysis was also conducted in which a negative response was assigned for patients lost to follow-up or who failed to respond to a particular question. Data were also collected on complications and re-operations. METHODS: All trial stimulation procedures were performed under local anesthetic with the patient providing feedback concerning pain relief achieved with various lead placements and settings. If one lead did not provide acceptable relief in all the areas needed, placement of a second lead was pursued. If the patient failed to maintain acceptable pain relief (> or =50% pain relief) during a multiday trial period, the leads were removed. If adequate relief was maintained during the trial period, the receiver was implanted. RESULTS: Responses to the follow-up questionnaire indicated that 60% of patients considered themselves improved from their preoperative condition and the remaining 40% did not; 78.1% of patients would recommend SCS to someone with similar problems, 69.0% were satisfied, 75.0% would have the procedure performed again if they had known their outcome before implantation. Among the 36 patients in whom the system was implanted, it was later removed in 4 because of lack of sufficient pain relief. Other re-operations included repositioning of the leads to regain pain relief in the areas needed, replacement of a malfunctioning unit and revision of lead extension wires. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, the majority of patients were satisfied with the results of SCS and would have the procedure again knowing what their outcome would be. These results suggest that further investigation of SCS is warranted in this difficult to treat patient population presenting with predominant complaints of chronic, intractable, axial low back pain.     

Safety and efficacy of implant removal for patients with recurrent back pain after a failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery

The etiology of failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery may include a wide array of conditions. There is a group of patients who have recurrence of back pain despite a solid fusion in the absence of any obvious pain generator. Implant removal in those patients is a controversial optional treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of implant removal and to determine the possible predictors of its efficacy. Twenty-five patients (10 M, 15 F) with an average age of 44 (18 to 74) were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had prior titanium posterior pedicle screw instrumentation and fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders. Twenty patients with increase in pain during palpation of the operative side underwent a preoperative anesthetic injection at the site of their trigger points. Patients' clinical charts, operative notes, and preoperative x-rays were evaluated. Relief of pain was evaluated by the percent Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain change due to implant removal. Functional improvement was rated on a five-point scale. Predictors of pain relief were analyzed by using bivariate analysis. A P value <0.05 was considered significant. Average follow-up period was 20 (12 to 37) months. The median time after the index operation and the recurrence of pain was 13.5 (1 to 119) months. VAS decrease after implant removal was 50% (P<0.001). Functional improvement was reported by 84% of patients. One patient developed a superficial infection managed successfully. Bivariate analysis showed that percent VAS change after injection, months free of pain after the index operation, and provocation of pain by palpation were significant predictors for pain relief (P<0.05). Removal of the implant may be an efficient and safe procedure for carefully selected patients and the most consistent predictor of its efficacy is the percent pain relief after the diagnostic injection of the painful operative side.     

The effect of nerve-root injections on the need for operative treatment of lumbar radicular pain. A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind study

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of selective nerve-root injections in obviating the need for an operation in patients with lumbar radicular pain who were otherwise considered to be operative candidates. Although selective nerve-root injections are used widely, we are not aware of any prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind studies demonstrating their efficacy. METHODS: Fifty-five patients who were referred to four spine surgeons because of lumbar radicular pain and who had radiographic confirmation of nerve-root compression were prospectively randomized into the study. All of the patients had to have requested operative intervention and had to be considered operative candidates by the treating surgeon. They then were randomized and referred to a radiologist who performed a selective nerve-root injection with either bupivacaine alone or bupivacaine with betamethasone. The treating physicians and the patients were blinded to the medication. The patients were allowed to choose to receive as many as four injections. The treatment was considered to have failed if the patient proceeded to have the operation, which he or she could opt to do at any point in the study. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the fifty-five patients, all of whom had initially requested operative treatment, decided not to have the operation during the follow-up period (range, thirteen to twenty-eight months) after the nerve-root injections. Of the twenty-seven patients who had received bupivacaine alone, nine elected not to have the operation. Of the twenty-eight patients who had received bupivacaine and betamethasone, twenty decided not to have the operation. The difference in the operative rates between the two groups was highly significant (p < 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that selective nerve-root injections of corticosteroids are significantly more effective than those of bupivacaine alone in obviating the need for a decompression for up to thirteen to twenty-eight months following the injections in operative candidates. This finding suggests that patients who have lumbar radicular pain at one or two levels should be considered for treatment with selective nerve-root injections of corticosteroids prior to being considered for operative intervention.     

Bridging the gap between science and practice in managing low back pain. A comprehensive spine care system in a health maintenance organization setting

STUDY DESIGN: A case study of spine care system changes in a multispecialty group practice health maintenance organization setting. OBJECTIVES: To reduce unnecessary use of imaging and specialty referrals for low back pain in the primary care setting and to reduce spine surgery rates. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Results of previous research indicate that diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for low back pain are frequently used even though there is no scientific evidence of their efficacy. This indicates that low back pain care can be made more efficient by reducing the use of unproven diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for low back pain. METHODS: Rates of diagnostic imaging and specialty referral rates for low back pain were monitored for 9 months before and 9 months after primary care physician education regarding appropriate low back pain evaluation and management. Spine surgery rates were also monitored before and after implementation of a nonsurgical spine clinic. RESULTS: Large reductions in rates of imaging and specialty referrals for low back pain were achieved after primary care physician education. After spine clinic implementation, visits to spine surgeons dropped by approximately 50%, and spine surgery rates per thousand health plan members were reduced by 35%. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physician education regarding low back pain management can reduce use of imaging and specialty referrals without reductions in patient satisfaction, and implementation of a nonsurgical spine clinic for complex or chronic spine patients can significantly reduce spine surgery consultations and spine surgery rates.     

The facet joint and its role in spine pain. Management with facet joint injections

Mechanical derangements of the lumbar spine, causing predominantly back pain with the absence of nerve root irritation or compromise, present a difficult treatment challenge to the average physician. The author suggests that facet joint injections offer a simple, safe, and often dramatically effective means for managing these problems. The historic background and technique are described in detail. The author presents his personal experience with 99 patients receiving a total of 117 facet joint injections in this retrospective, uncontrolled review. Results were classified as excellent in 17%, good in 25%, fair in 9%, mediocre in 4%, and no change in symptoms occurred in 44%. The procedure is recommended for diagnostic and conservative therapy.     

Prospective,double-blind,randomized placebo-controlled trials in interventional spine: what the highest quality literature tells us

Background contextThe prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study design is essential in the interventional spine literature to truly evaluate whether or not a procedure is effective.PurposeThis article will critically evaluate the highest quality interventional spine literature with strict interpretation of the results of these trials.Study designReview article.MethodsExtensive Medline/Pubmed searches and searches of the large review articles on the major interventional spine topics were performed to find all prospective, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials in the English language interventional spine literature.ResultsFluoroscopically-guided lumbosacral transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injections are effiective in the treatment of acute/subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, and in preventing future surgeries. Injection of corticosteroid or Sarapin on the cervical or lumbar medical branch nerves is not effective. When done with proper technique, percutaneous radiofrequency lumbar and cervial medial branch neurotomy are both effective. Intraarticular sacrociliac joint corticosteroid injections are effective in patients with spondyloarthropathy. IDET is modestly effective in the treatment of lumbosacral discogenic pain in carefully selected patients. Percutaneous radio frequency neurotomy of the ramus communicans is effective in the treatment of lumbosacral discogenic pain. No firm conclusions can be drawn about cervical epidural corticosteroid injections, lumbosacral epidural corticosteroid injections for the treatment of chronic radicular pain, cervical or lumbosacral intraarticular zygapophysial joint corticosteroid injections for the treatment of degenerative zygapophysial joint pain, or intradiscal corticosteroid injections.ConclusionsThe prospective, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials in the interventional spine literature demonstrate efficacy from several different procedures when properly performed on appropriate patients. Other procedures have been shown to lack efficacy, while inconclusive evidence exists from multiple other interventional spine procedures. Further details are discussed in the text.     

Intradiskal Treatments for Active Degenerative Disk Disease

Intradiskal steroid injections were first used 70 years ago. The initial failure of this treatment method can be ascribed to the absence of preclinical studies and of well-defined criteria for patient selection. Intradiskal calcifications were reported after triamcinolone hexacetonide or cortivazol injections, and proof of clinical benefits remained elusive. The concept of active degenerative disk disease (DDD) then emerged, and cases of incapacitating chronic low back pain with Modic I endplate changes were reported, leading to renewed interest in evaluating intradiskcal steroid injections. Prednisolone acetate was proven effective in providing short-term relief and was well tolerated in patients with incapacitating chronic low back pain and Modic I changes. This development highlights the importance of concomitant advances in identifying diagnostic entities and developing treatment strategies for patients with nonspecific low back pain.     

Percutaneous vertebroplasty of a myelomatous compression fracture in the presence of previous posterior instrumentation. Report of two cases

The authors report the use of percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty performed using polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in two patients. These men (53 and 57 years old) had previously undergone open surgery and posterior instrumentation to treat myelomatous compression fractures. Both patients presented with acute back pain that manifested after minor activities. Kyphotic wedge fractures were diagnosed at T-1 in one case and at L-1 in the other. Both patients were treated at other hospitals with laminectomy and instrumented fusion; multiple myeloma was diagnosed after surgery. The patients experienced severe, recalcitrant, and progressive pain; on referral, they were found to have persistent kyphosis. Multiple myelomatous lesions of the spine were seen in one case and in the other the L-1 fracture represented the only site of disease. Percutaneous vertebroplasty was performed by injecting PMMA into the anterior third of the compressed vertebral body. Both patients experienced a 50% reduction in pain immediately after treatment; 3 months later both were walking and reported minimal back pain while undergoing treatment for multiple myeloma. Three years after surgery one patient reported no back pain and no progressive instability of the spine. Four years after surgery the other patient remains pain free, ambulatory, and with overall disease remission. Percutaneous vertebroplasty provided effective analgesia in these two patients with progressive back pain despite posterior stabilization. In both cases, the anterior column was effectively stabilized. A much larger operative intervention with its attendant risks of morbidity was avoided. In addition, subsequent aggressive medical treatment was well tolerated.     

Increased Bone Mineral Density in a Man with Known Compression Fractures

A 70-yr-old man was referred for bone mineral density because of a history of vertebral and hip fracture. His past history included prednisone-treated rheumatoid arthritis and stroke resulting in hemiparesis and expressive aphasia. He had received injections for back pain at another hospital. The overall spine T-score was +3.40 with L3 at +10.92. The overall hip T-score was -1.09 with the femoral neck at -1.75 and Ward's triangle at -2.94. Radiographs of the spine revealed increased densities of L2-4. The patient's wife provided information the aphasic patient could not. The back injections were part of a vertebroplasty for stabilization. The patient had such great pain relief that he ambulated too soon, fell, and suffered a right hip fracture. Injection of polymethylmethyacrylate is a new addition to the treatment of spinal osteoporosis. The case demonstrates the importance of acquiring a complete medical history.     

The efficacy of conventional radiofrequency denervation in patients with chronic low back pain originating from the facet joints: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background Context

Radiofrequency denervation is commonly used for the treatment of chronic facet joint pain that has been refractory to more conservative treatments, although the evidence supporting this treatment has been controversial.

Transforaminal steroid injections for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy: a prospective and randomised study

Steroid injections are often employed as an alternative treatment for radicular pain in patients with degenerative spinal disorders. Prospective randomised studies of the lumbar spine reveal contradictory results and non-randomised and most often retrospective studies of the cervical spine indicate pain reduction from steroid injections. No prospective randomised study on transforaminal steroid injections for the treatment of radicular pain in the cervical spine focusing on short-term results has been performed. Forty consecutive patients were employed for the study. The inclusion criteria were one-sided cervical radiculopathy with radicular distribution of arm pain distal to the elbow and corresponding significant degenerative pathology of the cervical spine at one or two levels on the same side as the radicular pain and visualised by MRI. A transforaminal technique was used for all injections. A positive response to a diagnostic selective nerve root block at one or two nerve roots was mandatory for all patients. The patients were randomised for treatment with steroids/local anaesthetics or saline/local anaesthetic. Only the neuroradiologist performing the blocks was aware of the content of the injection; all other persons involved in the study were blinded. Follow up was made 3 weeks after the randomised treatment by a clinical investigation and with a questionnaire focusing on the subjective effects from the injections. At follow up, there were no differences in treatment results in the two patient groups. Statistical analysis of the results confirmed the lack of difference in treatment effect. Further studies have to be performed before excluding steroids in such treatment and for evaluating the influence of local anaesthetics on radiculopathy in transforaminal injections.     

Tuberculosis of the spine (Pott's disease) presenting as 'compression fractures'

STUDY DESIGN: Case reports and survey of literature. OBJECTIVE: Case reports of two women with tuberculosis (TB) of the spine (Pott's disease) presenting with severe back pain and diagnosed as compression fracture are described. Physicians should include Pott's disease in the differential diagnosis when patients present with severe back pain and evidence of vertebral collapse. SETTING: Ohio, USA METHODS: A review of the literature on the pathogenesis, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, treatment and prognosis of spinal TB was conducted. RESULTS: After initial delay, proper diagnosis of spinal TB was made in our patients. Microbiologic diagnosis confirmed M. tuberculosis, and appropriate medical treatment was initiated. CONCLUSIONS: Although uncommon, spinal TB still occurs in patients from developed countries, such as the US and Europe. Back pain is an important symptom. Vertebral collapse from TB may be misinterpreted as 'compression fractures' especially in elderly women. Magnetic resonance imaging scan (MRI) is an excellent procedure for the diagnosis of TB spine. However, microbiologic diagnosis is essential. Mycobacterium tuberculosis may be cultured from other sites. Otherwise, biopsy of the spine lesion should be done for pathologic diagnosis, culture and stain for M. tuberculosis. Clinicians should consider Pott's disease in the differential diagnosis of patients with back pain and destructive vertebral lesions. Proper diagnosis and anti-tuberculosis treatment with or without surgery will result in cure.     

The adult scoliosis

Adult scoliosis is defined as a spinal deformity in a skeletally mature patient with a Cobb angle of more than 10 degrees in the coronal plain. Adult scoliosis can be separated into four major groups: Type 1: Primary degenerative scoliosis, mostly on the basis of a disc and/or facet joint arthritis, affecting those structures asymmetrically with predominantly back pain symptoms, often accompanied either by signs of spinal stenosis (central as well as lateral stenosis) or without. These curves are often classified as "de novo" scoliosis. Type 2: Idiopathic adolescent scoliosis of the thoracic and/or lumbar spine which progresses in adult life and is usually combined with secondary degeneration and/or imbalance. Some patients had either no surgical treatment or a surgical correction and fusion in adolescence in either the thoracic or thoracolumbar spine. Those patients may develop secondary degeneration and progression of the adjacent curve; in this case those curves belong to the type 3a.Type 3: Secondary adult curves: (a) In the context of an oblique pelvis, for instance, due to a leg length discrepancy or hip pathology or as a secondary curve in idiopathic, neuromuscular and congenital scoliosis, or asymmetrical anomalies at the lumbosacral junction; (b) In the context of a metabolic bone disease (mostly osteoporosis) combined with asymmetric arthritic disease and/or vertebral fractures. Sometimes it is difficult to decide, what exactly the primary cause of the curve was, once it has significantly progressed. However, once an asymmetric load or degeneration occurs, the pathomorphology and pathomechanism in adult scoliosis predominantly located in the lumbar or thoracolumbar spine is quite predictable. Asymmetric degeneration leads to increased asymmetric load and therefore to a progression of the degeneration and deformity, as either scoliosis and/or kyphosis. The progression of a curve is further supported by osteoporosis, particularly in post-menopausal female patients. The destruction of facet joints, joint capsules, discs and ligaments may create mono- or multisegmental instability and finally spinal stenosis. These patients present themselves predominantly with back pain, then leg pain and claudication symptoms, rarely with neurological deficit, and almost never with questions related to cosmetics. The diagnostic evaluation includes static and dynamic imaging, myelo-CT, as well as invasive diagnostic procedures like discograms, facet blocks, epidural and root blocks and immobilization tests. These tests may correlate with the clinical and the pathomorphological findings and may also offer the least invasive and most rational treatment for the patient. The treatment is then tailored to the specific symptomatology of the patient. Surgical management consists of either decompression, correction, stabilization and fusion procedures or a combination of all of these. Surgical procedure is usually complex and has to deal with a whole array of specific problems like the age and the general medical condition of the patient, the length of the fusion, the condition of the adjacent segments, the condition of the lumbosacral junction, osteoporosis and possibly previous scoliosis surgery, and last but not least, usually with a long history of chronified back pain and muscle imbalance which may be very difficult to be influenced. Although this surgery is demanding, the morbidity cannot be considered significantly higher than in other established orthopaedic procedures, like hip replacement, in the same age group of patients. Overall, a satisfactory outcome can be expected in well-differentiated indications and properly tailored surgical procedures, although until today prospective, controlled studies with outcome measures and pre- and post-operative patient's health status are lacking. As patients, who present themselves with significant clinical problems in the context of adult scoliosis, get older, minimal invasive procedures to address exactly the most relevant clinical problem may become more and more important, basically ignoring the overall deformity and degeneration of the spine.     

Surgical treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with associated scoliosis

Spinal stenosis in combination with scoliosis frequently is seen in elderly patients. Patients typically present with a combination of symptoms attributable to neurogenic claudication and radicular pain, and symptoms of lower back pain. For patients in whom conservative treatment is not sufficient, surgical treatment can be done with careful consideration of the overall patient and his or her medical status. Surgical treatment is twofold; one purpose is to decompress the neural elements, the other purpose is to stabilize and realign the spine to as great a degree as possible. Appropriate balance of the spine at the end of the procedure is more important than the absolute amount of correction obtained. Stabilization and correction of the spine is done with pedicle screw-rod instrumentation and fusion, and the procedure must be done in an efficient and timely manner to involve the least amount of morbidity. There are two types of deformity typically seen, one is a degenerative lumbar scoliosis with no or minimal rotational deformity (Type I), and the other is a degenerative scoliosis often superimposed on a preexisting scoliosis with greater rotational deformity and greater loss of lordosis (Type II). Instrumentation and correction techniques differ for these two types of deformities, with shorter instrumentation procedures usually possible for the Type I deformity and longer instrumentation with sagittal plane reconstitution necessary for Type II deformity.     

Efficacy of MRI--whole spine image in diagnosis of vertebral metastases--results of a prospective study

AIM: To prospectively investigate the outcome efficacy of whole spine MRI for diagnosis and treatment in patients with suspected metastases of the spine. METHODS: All patients older than 50 years with newly diagnosed back pain and/or newly diagnosed spine-related neurological symptoms without a diagnosis by other imaging modalities were accepted in this study. A whole spine MRI and a detailed MRI per spine region with suspicious lesions were performed using a Siemens Magnetom Expert 1.0 Tesla machine. Outcome efficacy was determined by assessing further therapy and result for the patient. RESULTS: In all 15 patients of the year 1999 whole spine MRI allowed us to determine the definite diagnosis and treatment. Plain X-ray and 99mTc bone scanning gave a diagnostic suspicion but no definite diagnosis or therapeutic consequence. CONCLUSIONS: MRI of the spine including whole spine images allows clear cut decision making in diagnosis and treatment of cases suspicious for metastatic disease of the spine. Careful history taking and clinical examination provide enough information to opt for whole spine MRI as the first choice investigation. This will provide maximum benefit to the patient and avoid examination cascades.     

Identifying treatment patterns in patients with Bertolotti syndrome: an elusive cause of chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXTBertolotti Syndrome is a diagnosis given to patients with lower back pain arising from a lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV). These patients can experience symptomatology similar to common degenerative diseases of the spine, making Bertolotti Syndrome difficult to diagnose with clinical presentation alone. Castellvi classified the LSTV seen in this condition and specifically in types IIa and IIb, a “pseudoarticulation” is present between the fifth lumbar transverse process and the sacral ala, resulting in a semi-mobile joint with cartilaginous surfaces.Treatment outcomes for Bertolotti Syndrome are poorly understood but can involve diagnostic and therapeutic injections and ultimately surgical resection of the pseudoarticulation (pseudoarthrectomy) or fusion of surrounding segments.PURPOSETo examine spine and regional injection patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with diagnosed and undiagnosed Bertolotti Syndrome.DESIGNRetrospective observational cohort study of patients seen at a single institution's tertiary spine center over a 10-year period.PATIENT SAMPLECohort consisted of 67 patients with an identified or unidentified LSTV who were provided injections or surgery for symptoms related to their chronic low back pain and radiculopathy.OUTCOME MEASURESSelf-reported clinical improvement following injections and pseudoarthrectomy.METHODSPatient charts were reviewed. Identification of a type II LSTV was confirmed through provider notes and imaging. Variables collected included demographics, injection history and outcomes, and surgical history for those who underwent pseudoarthrectomy.RESULTSA total of 22 out of 67 patients (33%) had an LSTV that was not identified by their provider. Diagnosed patients underwent fewer injections for their symptoms than those whose LSTV was never previously identified (p = 0.031). Only those diagnosed received an injection at the LSTV pseudoarticulation, which demonstrated significant symptomatic improvement at immediate follow up compared to all other injection types (p = 0.002). Patients who responded well to pseudoarticulation injections were offered a pseudoarthrectomy, which was more likely to result in symptom relief at most recent follow up than patients who underwent further injections without surgery (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSUndiagnosed patients are subject to a higher quantity of injections at locations less likely to provide relief than pseudoarticulation injections. These patients in turn cannot be offered a pseudoarthrectomy which can result in significant relief compared to continued injections alone. Proper and timely identification of an LSTV dramatically alters the clinical course of these patients as they can only be offered treatment directed towards the LSTV once it is identified.     

An injection from the past: fluoroscopic evidence of remote injections of radiopaque substances

OBJECTIVE: Although uncommon, residual effects from contrast agents used more than 2 decades ago are possible. This case report is to alert clinicians to the implications of residual oil-based ionic contrast agents in the intrathecal space. CASE REPORT: A 70-year-old female with evidence of degenerative disc disease underwent a series of lumbar epidural steroid injections. Fluoroscopy during the procedure revealed diffuse residual intrathecal iophendylate (Pantopaque) dye. We were able to demonstrate unrestricted epidural spread of 1 mL iohexol (Omnipaque 180) alongside the preexisting dye. CONCLUSIONS: The goal of this case report is to highlight the potential of residual myelographic dye to complicate interventional procedures. Such residual dye can increase the level of difficulty in performing interventional pain treatments and perhaps the rate of complications associated with epidural injections, such as dural puncture. The presence of large amounts of residual oil-based intrathecal dye can lead to erroneous interpretations of the dye patterns as intraspinal lipoma or hemorrhage. As a consequence, the patient can be submitted to unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. In addition, concerns of worsening oil-based dye-induced arachnoiditis with the use of epidural steroid injections can complicate the treatment of patients with back pain.     

Retroperitoneal approach for lumbar interbody fusion with anterolateral instrumentation for treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative foraminal stenosis

BACKGROUND: An alternative approach for the treatment of the degenerative or unstable lumbar spine using retroperitoneal lateral LIF with anterolateral screw-plate or screw-rod fixation is introduced. Special attention is given to application of this procedure in patients who have undergone prior lumbar surgery. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2001, 14 patients underwent lateral LIF with anterolateral instrumentation to treat degenerative foraminal stenosis or spondylolisthesis. Eleven patients (79%) had undergone prior posterior lumbar surgery, 7 of whom were also fused at that time. All patients first presented with mechanical back pain, radicular pain, or both. The mean follow-up was 21 months (range, 8 to 36 months). RESULTS: Radicular pain and mechanical back pain significantly improved in 71% and 54% of patients, respectively. Of the 9 patients with preoperative neurological deficits, 7 were intact or had improved at their follow-up examination. One patient developed postoperative radiculopathy contralateral to his original symptoms. Radiography confirmed good positioning of the hardware and evidence of fusion in all 14 patients. No major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal lateral LIF with anterolateral instrumentation is an attractive alternative for the treatment of the degenerative or unstable lumbar spine in the absence of significant spinal stenosis. This approach is particularly useful for treating spondylolisthesis or degenerative foraminal stenosis in the postoperative lumbar spine.