Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.


Lumbosacral Disc Injuries Workup

  • Author: Robert E Windsor, MD, FAAPMR, FAAEM, FAAPM; Chief Editor: Craig C Young, MD  more...
Updated: Oct 12, 2015

Imaging Studies


Before performing intradiscal, minimally invasive, or most open surgical interventions, localization of the affected disc level must be determined. Discography is currently the only tool that correlates a radiographic image to symptoms and is essential to the diagnosis of IDD.

Lindblom introduced lumbar discography in the early 1940s.[27] During the 1940s-1960s, concerns were raised regarding the safety of this procedure after reports of spinal headache (HA), discitis, meningitis, intrathecal hemorrhage, arachnoiditis, reaction to inadvertent intradural injection, and damage to the disc itself. In 1948, Hirsch reported on 16 patients who underwent discography with no complications and who later showed no signs of disc injury from discography when operated on.[28]

Much of the controversy surrounding discography centers on the unfavorable results reported by Earl Holt in 1968.[29] He examined 30 prison inmates (70-72 discs) and reported a 37% false-positive rate in asymptomatic volunteers. The shortcomings of this paper were extensively and critically reviewed by Simmons et al.[30] As these authors pointed out, the procedure of discography has changed significantly since Holt's study and should not be discounted based solely on those earlier results. In the same year as Holt's report, Wiley et al showed that the value of discography was in the investigation of symptoms that arise from the disc in the absence of herniation.[31] This study involved over 1000 patients and more than 2500 discs.

Walsh and associates reported on lumbar discography in normal subjects.[32] In asymptomatic subjects, the discogram alone was abnormal in 17%. When the criteria for a positive discogram included a concordant pain response, none of the subjects were positive.

Discography provides information about the structure and sensitivity of discs that may not be learned from other sources. Discographic pain provocation is a very important part of the evaluation. Currently, discography is the only method of directly relating a radiographic image to a patient's pain.

In 1995 the NASS published its position statement regarding discography.[33] This procedure is indicated when adequate conservative therapy and noninvasive tests have not provided adequate information. Specific indications include the correlation of an abnormal disc with clinical symptoms and persistent severe symptoms without clearly identifying the disc as the pain source.

Discography is also indicated in the assessment of patients in whom surgery has failed and in the assessment of discs before fusion or minimally invasive interventions. The minimum recorded information should include the resistance to injection, amount of contrast medium injected, the pattern of dye distribution (eg, diffuse, location of fissures, extravasation, herniations, Schmorl nodes), and pain response. Special attention to the pain response is important (eg, no pain, dissimilar pain, similar pain, exact pain reproduction).


A classification method for CT scanning/discography was proposed in 1987 and is widely accepted today for reporting the degree of intervertebral disc degeneration, annular disruption, and provoked pain response.[34] The Dallas Discogram Description (DDD) classifies a discographic procedure based upon the disc morphology as seen on CT scans and the provoked pain response. The DDD identifies 4 classes of annular disruptions, as follows[34] :

  • Grade 0 is defined as contrast medium entirely within a normal nucleus pulposus.
  • Grade 1 is used if the contrast medium extends radially along a fissure involving the inner third of the annulus fibrosus.
  • Grade 2 is defined as the extension of the contrast medium into the middle third of the annulus fibrosus.
  • Grade 3 is defined as the extension of the contrast medium into the outer third of the annulus, either focally or radially within the outer annulus to an extent not greater than 30º of the disc circumference.
  • A grade 4 was added by Aprill and Bogduk, defined as a grade 3 tear that dissects radially within the outer third of the annulus to involve more than 30º of the disc circumference. [35]
  • Schellhas et al added a grade 5, defined as a full-thickness tear, either focal or more circumferential, with extra annular leakage of the contrast medium. [36]
  • The second component of the DDD is the provoked pain response. Upon pressure challenge with an injectate, pain responses are categorized as no pain, dissimilar pain, similar pain, or exact pain reproduction.

The classification of disc injuries based upon radiographic imaging can be confusing due to the multitude of terms relating to disc abnormalities. Common terms describing a disc abnormality include bulge, protrusion, herniation, rupture, and extrusion. Often, a modifier such as focal, contained, noncontained, subligamentous, sequestered, or free fragment, accompanies each of these categories. Other descriptions use a combination of terms (eg, extruded herniation).

In a review of magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of the spine, Gundry and Fritts defined the disc abnormality nomenclature.[37]

  • A bulge refers to a broad-based projection of the outer annular fibers beyond the posterior bony margins of the adjacent vertebrae. A bulging disc may or may not be associated with an annular tear, resulting in the more descriptive terminology of an annular tear with focal annular bulge.
  • The term herniation refers to the presence of nuclear material within or beyond the confines of the annular tear. A contained herniation is one that is contained beneath an intact posterior longitudinal ligament, whereas a noncontained herniation extends through a defective posterior longitudinal ligament. A sequestered or free fragment herniation denotes a herniation that has no connection with the original disc.

Other authors have proposed a simpler nomenclature. In this classification, intervertebral discs are classified as normal, bulge, protrusion, or extrusion. These terms are defined as follows:

  • Normal – No disc extension beyond the interspace
  • Bulge – Circumferential symmetric extension of the disc beyond the interspace (around the endplates)
  • Protrusion – Focal or asymmetric extension of the disc beyond the interspace, with the base against the disc of origin broader than any other dimension of the protrusion
  • Extrusion – More extreme extension of the disc beyond the interspace, with the base against the disc of origin narrower than the diameter of the extruding material itself or with no connection between the material and the disc of origin

All these classification terms are attempts to describe in detail the findings of MRIs with their increased ability to distinguish between the nucleus pulposus, annulus fibrosus, and posterior longitudinal complex. In and of themselves, degenerative, bulging, protruding, or extruding discs are not known to be painful. Some combination of mechanical and biochemical insults produces the pain related to lumbosacral intervertebral disc injuries.

Aprill and Bogduk described a finding on MRI that was related to an annular tear, which became known as the high intensity zone (HIZ).[35] The authors postulated that the HIZ was a marker for a painful lumbar disc. The criteria for identifying an HIZ were a high-intensity signal (bright white) located in the substance of the posterior annulus fibrosus, clearly dissociated from the signal of the nucleus pulposus in that it is surrounded superiorly, inferiorly, posteriorly, and anteriorly by the low-intensity (black) signal of the annulus fibrosus, and it is appreciably brighter than that of the nucleus pulposus.

Aprill and Bogduk found the HIZ to be a diagnostic indicator of a degenerated painful disc such as that seen in IDD.[35] Their findings remain debated.[38, 39] Some authors have provided evidence supporting the HIZ, whereas other results have contradicted their findings. It is postulated that the HIZ is composed of nuclear material in the annulus fibrosus, which has become inflamed, neovascularized, or invaded by granulation tissue.

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Robert E Windsor, MD, FAAPMR, FAAEM, FAAPM President and Director, Georgia Pain Physicians, PC; Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Emory University School of Medicine

Robert E Windsor, MD, FAAPMR, FAAEM, FAAPM is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American College of Sports Medicine, American Medical Association, International Association for the Study of Pain, Texas Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.


Kevin P Sullivan, MD Consulting Staff, The Boston Spine Group

Kevin P Sullivan, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, North American Spine Society, International Spine Intervention Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Erik D Hiester, DO Fellow in Interventional Pain Management, Georgia Pain Physicians, Emory University School of Medicine

Erik D Hiester, DO is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Family Physicians, American Medical Association, American Osteopathic Association, American Pain Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Henry T Goitz, MD Academic Chair and Associate Director, Detroit Medical Center Sports Medicine Institute; Director, Education, Research, and Injury Prevention Center; Co-Director, Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship

Henry T Goitz, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Craig C Young, MD Professor, Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Community and Family Medicine, Medical Director of Sports Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin

Craig C Young, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Sports Medicine, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, Phi Beta Kappa

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Andrew D Perron, MD Residency Director, Department of Emergency Medicine, Maine Medical Center

Andrew D Perron, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Sports Medicine, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.


The authors and editors of Medscape Reference gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous coauthor Dr Dennis P White to the development and writing of this article.

  1. Manek NJ, MacGregor AJ. Epidemiology of back disorders: prevalence, risk factors, and prognosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2005 Mar. 17(2):134-40. [Medline].

  2. Frymoyer JW. Epidemiology: the magnitude of the problem. Wiesel SW, ed. The Lumbar Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1996. 8-16.

  3. Bigos SJ, Battie MC. The impact of spinal disorders in industry. Frymoyer JW, ed. The Adult Spine: Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1991.

  4. Frymoyer JW, Cats-Baril WL. An overview of the incidences and costs of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 1991 Apr. 22(2):263-71. [Medline].

  5. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, ed. The pathology and pathogenesis of low back pain. Managing Low Back Pain. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1988. 49.

  6. Deyo RA, Tsui-Wu YJ. Descriptive epidemiology of low-back pain and its related medical care in the United States. Spine. 1987 Apr. 12(3):264-8. [Medline].

  7. Saal JS, Franson RC, Dobrow R, et al. High levels of inflammatory phospholipase A2 activity in lumbar disc herniations. Spine. 1990 Jul. 15(7):674-8. [Medline].

  8. Saal JS, Sibley R, Dobrow R, et al. Cellular response to lumbar disc herniation: an immunohistologic study. Presented at: Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine; June 1990; Boston, Mass.

  9. Beattie PF. Current understanding of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration: a review with emphasis upon etiology, pathophysiology, and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging findings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008 Jun. 38(6):329-40. [Medline].

  10. Kanemoto M, Hukuda S, Komiya Y, Katsuura A, Nishioka J. Immunohistochemical study of matrix metalloproteinase-3 and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 human intervertebral discs. Spine. 1996 Jan 1. 21(1):1-8. [Medline].

  11. Weinstein SM, Herring SA, Derby R. Contemporary concepts in spine care. Epidural steroid injections. Spine. 1995 Aug 15. 20(16):1842-6. [Medline].

  12. Malinsky J. The ontogenenetic development of nerve terminationsin the intervertebral disc of man. Acta anat. 1959. 38:96-113.

  13. Moneta GB, Videman T, Kaivanto K, et al. Reported pain during lumbar discography as a function of anular ruptures and disc degeneration. A re-analysis of 833 discograms. Spine. 1994 Sep 1. 19(17):1968-74. [Medline].

  14. [Guideline] Watters WC 3rd, Resnick DK, Eck JC, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 13: injection therapies, low-back pain, and lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):79-90. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  15. Kraemer J. Natural course and prognosis of intervertebral disc diseases. International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine Seattle, Washington, June 1994. Spine. 1995 Mar 15. 20(6):635-9. [Medline].

  16. Bobechko WP, Hirsch C. Auto-immune response to nucleus pulposus in the rabbit. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1965 Aug. 47:574-80. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  17. Olmarker K, Nordborg C, Larsson K, Rydevik B. Ultrastructural changes in spinal nerve roots induced by autologous nucleus pulposus. Spine. 1996 Feb 15. 21(4):411-4. [Medline].

  18. Olmarker K, Blomquist J, Strömberg J, et al. Inflammatogenic properties of nucleus pulposus. Spine. 1995 Mar 15. 20(6):665-9. [Medline].

  19. McCarron RF, Wimpee MW, Hudkins PG, Laros GS. The inflammatory effect of nucleus pulposus. A possible element in the pathogenesis of low-back pain. Spine. 1987 Oct. 12(8):760-4. [Medline].

  20. Franson RC, Saal JS, Saal JA. Human disc phospholipase A2 is inflammatory. Spine. 1992 Jun. 17(6 suppl):S129-32. [Medline].

  21. Ozaktay AC, Cavanaugh JM, Blagoev DC, King AI. Phospholipase A2-induced electrophysiologic and histologic changes in rabbit dorsal lumbar spine tissues. Spine. 1995 Dec 15. 20(24):2659-68. [Medline].

  22. Grönblad M, Virri J, Tolonen J, et al. A controlled immunohistochemical study of inflammatory cells in disc herniation tissue. Spine. 1994 Dec 15. 19(24):2744-51. [Medline].

  23. Haro H, Kato T, Komori H, Osada M, Shinomiya K. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-induced angiogenesis in herniated disc resorption. J Orthop Res. 2002 May. 20(3):409-15. [Medline].

  24. Doita M, Kanatani T, Harada T, Mizuno K. Immunohistologic study of the ruptured intervertebral disc of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1996 Jan 15. 21(2):235-41. [Medline].

  25. Takahashi H, Suguro T, Okazima Y, et al. Inflammatory cytokines in the herniated disc of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1996 Jan 15. 21(2):218-24. [Medline].

  26. Crock HV. Internal disc disruption. A challenge to disc prolapse fifty years on. Spine. 1986 Jul-Aug. 11(6):650-3. [Medline].

  27. Lindblom K. Diagnostic puncture of intervertebral disks in sciatica. Acta Orthop Scand. 1948. 17:213-39.

  28. Hirsch C. An attempt to diagnose the level of a disc lesion clinically by disc puncture. Acta Orthop Scand. 1948. 18:132-40.

  29. Holt EP Jr. The question of lumbar discography. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1968 Jun. 50(4):720-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  30. Simmons JW, Aprill CN, Dwyer AP, Brodsky AE. A reassessment of Holt's data on: "The question of lumbar discography". Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Dec. 237:120-4. [Medline].

  31. Wiley JJ, Macnab I, Wortzman G. Lumbar discography and its clinical applications. Can J Surg. 1968 Jul. 11(3):280-9. [Medline].

  32. Walsh TR, Weinstein JN, Spratt KF, Lehmann TR, Aprill C, Sayre H. Lumbar discography in normal subjects. A controlled, prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Aug. 72(7):1081-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  33. Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD. Lumbar discography. Position statement from the North American Spine Society Diagnostic and Therapeutic Committee. Spine. 1995 Sep 15. 20(18):2048-59. [Medline].

  34. Sachs BL, Vanharanta H, Spivey MA, et al. Dallas discogram description. A new classification of CT/discography in low-back disorders. Spine. 1987 Apr. 12(3):287-94. [Medline].

  35. Aprill C, Bogduk N. High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol. 1992 May. 65(773):361-9. [Medline].

  36. Schellhas KP, Pollei SR, Gundry CR, Heithoff KB. Lumbar disc high-intensity zone. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging and discography. Spine. 1996 Jan 1. 21(1):79-86. [Medline].

  37. Gundry CR, Fritts HM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Part 8. The spine, section 2. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Oct. 343:260-71. [Medline].

  38. Ricketson R, Simmons JW, Hauser BO. The prolapsed intervertebral disc. The high-intensity zone with discography correlation. Spine. 1996 Dec 1. 21(23):2758-62. [Medline].

  39. Smith BM, Hurwitz EL, Solsberg D, et al. Interobserver reliability of detecting lumbar intervertebral disc high-intensity zone on magnetic resonance imaging and association of high-intensity zone with pain and anular disruption. Spine. 1998 Oct 1. 23(19):2074-80. [Medline].

  40. [Guideline] Wang JC, Dailey AT, Mummaneni PV, Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):48-53. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  41. German JW, Foley KT. Disc arthroplasty in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine. 2005 Aug 15. 30(16 suppl):S60-7. [Medline].

  42. Gamradt SC, Wang JC. Lumbar disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2005 Jan-Feb. 5(1):95-103. [Medline].

  43. Krych AJ, Richman D, Drakos M, Weiss L, Barnes R, Cammisa F, et al. Epidural steroid injection for lumbar disc herniation in NFL athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Feb. 44(2):193-8. [Medline].

  44. Peul WC, van den Hout WB, Brand R, Thomeer RT, Koes BW. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation: two year results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008 Jun 14. 336(7657):1355-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  45. Saal JS, Saal JA. Management of chronic discogenic low back pain with a thermal intradiscal catheter. A preliminary report. Spine. 2000 Feb 1. 25(3):382-8. [Medline].

  46. Iwamoto J, Sato Y, Takeda T, Matsumoto H. The return to sports activity after conservative or surgical treatment in athletes with lumbar disc herniation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Dec. 89(12):1030-5. [Medline].

  47. Hsu WK, McCarthy KJ, Savage JW, Roberts DW, Roc GC, Micev AJ, et al. The Professional Athlete Spine Initiative: outcomes after lumbar disc herniation in 342 elite professional athletes. Spine J. 2011 Mar. 11(3):180-6. [Medline].

  48. [Guideline] Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):7-13. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  49. Andersson GB. Epidemiologic aspects on low-back pain in industry. Spine. 1981 Jan-Feb. 6(1):53-60. [Medline].

  50. Andersson GB, Brown MD, Dvorak J, et al. Consensus summary of the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 1996 Dec 15. 21(24 suppl):75S-78S. [Medline].

  51. Brown KR, Pollintine P, Adams MA. Biomechanical implications of degenerative joint disease in the apophyseal joints of human thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Jul. 136(3):318-26. [Medline].

  52. Fardon D, Pinkerton S, Balderston R, et al. Terms used for diagnosis by English speaking spine surgeons. Spine. 1993 Feb. 18(2):274-7. [Medline].

  53. Garfin SR, Rydevik B, Lind B, Massie J. Spinal nerve root compression. Spine. 1995 Aug 15. 20(16):1810-20. [Medline].

  54. Garfin SR, Rydevik BL, Brown RA. Compressive neuropathy of spinal nerve roots. A mechanical or biological problem?. Spine. 1991 Feb. 16(2):162-6. [Medline].

  55. Habtemariam A, Grönblad M, Virri J, et al. Immunocytochemical localization of immunoglobulins in disc herniations. Spine. 1996 Aug 15. 21(16):1864-9. [Medline].

  56. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994 Jul 14. 331(2):69-73. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  57. Kuslich SD, Ulstrom CL, Michael CJ. The tissue origin of low back pain and sciatica: a report of pain response to tissue stimulation during operations on the lumbar spine using local anesthesia. Orthop Clin North Am. 1991 Apr. 22(2):181-7. [Medline].

  58. Lotan R, Oron A, Anekstein Y, Shalmon E, Mirovsky Y. Lumbar stenosis and systemic diseases: is there any relevance?. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008 Jun. 21(4):247-51. [Medline].

  59. Nguyen CM, Ho KC, Yu SW, Haughton VM, Strandt JA. An experimental model to study contrast enhancement in MR imaging of the intervertebral disk. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1989 Jul-Aug. 10(4):811-4. [Medline].

  60. Palmgren T, Grönblad M, Virri J, et al. Immunohistochemical demonstration of sensory and autonomic nerve terminals in herniated lumbar disc tissue. Spine. 1996 Jun 1. 21(11):1301-6. [Medline].

  61. Ross JS, Modic MT, Masaryk TJ. Tears of the anulus fibrosus: assessment with Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1989 Nov-Dec. 10(6):1251-4. [Medline].

  62. Slipman C, Sawchuck TC. Discogenic pain: state of art reviews. Phys Med Rehab. 1999. 13:601-24.

  63. Takahashi H, Suguro T, Okazima Y, et al. Inflammatory cytokines in the herniated disc of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1996 Jan 15. 21(2):218-24. [Medline].

  64. Troup JD, Martin JW, Lloyd DC. Back pain in industry. A prospective survey. Spine. 1981 Jan-Feb. 6(1):61-9. [Medline].

  65. Von Korff M, Saunders K. The course of back pain in primary care. Spine. 1996 Dec 15. 21(24):2833-7; discussion 2838-9. [Medline].

  66. [Guideline] Eck JC, Sharan A, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Ghogawala Z, Dailey AT, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 6: discography for patient selection. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):37-41. [Medline]. [Full Text].

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.