Advertisement

Role of Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression in the Treatment of Discogenic Back Pain

  • William Black
  • Arpad S. Fejos
  • Daniel S.J. Choy
Chapter
  • 136 Downloads

Conclusions

These results indicate that discogenic back pain, whether diagnosed clinically or via discogram, is amenable to PLDD. In the future, more comprehensive studies must be performed to support these findings. Based on this small study population, it can be concluded that PLDD may be an effective treatment for discogenic back pain with minimal natural recurrence.

Keywords

Back Pain Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Intradiscal Pressure Outer Annulus Discogenic Pain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rhyne AL, et al. Outcome of enumerated discogram-positive low back pain. Spine 1995;20:1997–2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischgrund JS, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of discogenic low back pain. Orthop Rev 1993;22:311–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Groen G, et al. The nerves and nerve plexus of the human vertebral column. Am J Anat 1990;188:282–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mooney V, et al. Position statement on discography, the Executive Committee of the North American Spine Society. Spine 1988;13:1343.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoshizawa H, et al. The neuropathology of intervertebral disc removed for low back pain. J Pathol 1980;132:95–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuslich SD, et al. The tissue origin of low back pain and sciatica. Orthop Clin North Am 1991;22:181–187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Birney TJ, et al. Comparison of MRI and discography in the diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disc disease. J Spinal Disord 1992;5:417–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colhoun E, et al. Provocative discography as a guide to planning operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1988;70:267–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hudgins WR. Diagnostic accuracy of lumbar discography. Spine 1977;2:305–309.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holt E. The question of lumbar discography. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1968;50:720–726.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maezawa S, et al. Pain provocation at lumbar discography as analyzed by computed tomography/discography. Spine 1992;17:1309–1315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nachemson A. Lumbar discography—where are we today? Spine 1989;14:555–557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zdeblick TA. The treatment of degenerative lumbar disorders–a critical review. Spine 1995;20(suppl):126S–137S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donelson R, et al. A prospective study of centralization of lumbar and referred pain—a predictor of symptomatic discs and anular competence. Spine 1997;22:1115–1122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ascher PW. Application of the laser in neurosurgery. Lasers Surg Med 1986;2:91–97.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choy D, et al. Percutaneous laser disc decompression: an update. J Clin Laser Med Surg 1992;10:177–184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nachemson A, et al. In vivo measurements of intradiscal pressure discometry, a method for the determination of pressure in the lower lumbar discs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1964;40(5):1077–1092.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Black
  • Arpad S. Fejos
  • Daniel S.J. Choy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations