Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease in the Mature Athlete Workup

  • Author: Gerard A Malanga, MD; Chief Editor: Sherwin SW Ho, MD   more...
 
Updated: Jan 7, 2010
 

Imaging Studies

  • Plain radiographs
    • Plain radiographs traditionally have been ordered as the initial step in the workup of lumbar spine pain. The main purpose of plain radiographs is to detect underlying structural pathologic conditions. Selective criteria can be used to improve the usefulness of plain radiographs.
    • These studies generally are not recommended during the first month of symptoms in patients without any red flags. An exception to this would be if the low back symptoms are related to a sports-related injury where there is suspicion of fracture.
    • Three basic views of the spine are routinely ordered for workup of LBP: the anteroposterior view, the lateral view, and the coned-down lateral view of the lower 2 interspaces. Oblique views can be obtained to further visualize the facet joints, the pars interarticularis, and the neuroforamen.
    • Radiographs detect the characteristic degenerative changes of the spine, and, in some cases, they may localize a particular site of degeneration that may be causing symptoms.
  • Bone scan
    • Bone scans can be helpful when tumor, infection, or fracture (occult or traumatic) is suspected.
    • Bone scans are limited by relatively poor spatial resolution of the pertinent anatomy of the spine.
    • Single-photon emission computed tomography scan provides superior anatomical resolution compared with uniplanar radionuclide images.
    • Positive bone scan findings generally should be followed by confirmatory imaging, such as MRI or CT scan, which provides for greater pathoanatomical detail of the spine.
  • CT scan
    • CT scan of the lumbar spine provides superior anatomical imaging of the osseous structures of the spine and good resolution for disc herniation. However, its sensitivity for detecting disc herniations when used with myelography is inferior to MRI.
    • As with MRI, the frequency of false-positive findings in asymptomatic patients is high. CT scan is best used when a fracture is suspected, but it can be used in the detection of disc injury in patients who cannot undergo MRI. In addition, CT scan is recommended when more detailed imaging of the bony architecture is important.
  • Myelography
    • A myelogram involves penetration of the subarachnoid space and generally is not indicated in the evaluation of acute LBP. Generally, it is reserved as a preoperative test, often in conjunction with a CT scan. This provides a detailed anatomic picture, particularly of the spinal osseous elements, and can be used to correlate examination findings and assist in preoperative planning.
    • Myelography rarely is used in the nonoperative evaluation of patients with acute LBP, except in cases in which the clinical picture supports a progressive neurologic deficit and the MRI and electromyogram are nondiagnostic.
  • MRI
    • MRI provides high-resolution imaging and therefore allows accurate description of intervertebral disc pathology. T2-weighted images are sensitive to disc degeneration because there is a loss of signal primarily within the nucleus as a result of altered hydration status.
    • Sagittal sections reveal the vertebral column, intervertebral discs, spinal canal, and spinal cord. Axial views show the disc or vertebral body, the spinal cord, and the spinal roots, among other structures. Neural element encroachment seen on the sagittal view should be confirmed on the axial view.
    • MRI also is useful for assessment of canal encroachment and spinal stenosis. MRI is useful for imaging the broad spectrum of pathology associated with DDD in the mature athlete.
    • As with CT scanning, MRI is very sensitive, and not all abnormalities detected are clinically relevant. Jensen et al found in their study of 98 asymptomatic people that 64% of subjects without back pain had a bulge, protrusion, or extrusion of the intervertebral disc at one level, and 38% had an intervertebral disc abnormality at more than one level. Additionally, they found that the prevalence of disc pathology varied according to the age of the patient. In the group of asymptomatic subjects aged 60 years or older, they found that 80% had disc bulges at one or more levels. Therefore, because bulges and protrusions on MRI in people with LBP may be coincidental, each MRI study must be interpreted with regard to the patient's history, physical examination, and other diagnostic tests.
Next

Other Tests

  • Electrodiagnosis
    • Electrodiagnostic studies, including nerve conduction studies, needle electromyography, and somatosensory evoked potentials, should be considered an extension of the history and physical examination and not merely a substitute for a detailed neurologic and musculoskeletal examination. These studies are helpful when the diagnosis remains unclear in patients with limb pain. They also are helpful in excluding other causes of sensory and motor disturbances, such as peripheral neuropathy and motor neuron disease. Additionally, they can provide useful prognostic information by quantifying the extent and acuity of axonal involvement in radiculopathies. Electrodiagnostic studies performed less than 3 weeks after the onset of symptoms may result in a false-negative study since evidence of denervation does not appear until 2-3 weeks postinjury.
    • Performing late responses, such as the H-reflex, can provide valuable information regarding the proximal nerve or nerve root involvement. The H-reflex is both a sensitive and specific marker for involvement of the S1 root and is prolonged from the time of symptom onset.
    • Electrodiagnostic testing usually is not necessary in patients with a clear-cut radiculopathy or in patients with isolated LBP. When imaging studies reveal multiple abnormalities, which are common in older individuals with degenerative changes, electrodiagnosis can assist in localizing the etiology of the patient's symptoms.
Previous
Next

Procedures

  • Discography
    • Discography is rarely necessary in the evaluation of LBP and is not recommended within the first 3 months of treatment. Discography can be helpful in patients who have not responded to a well-coordinated rehabilitation program or who have normal or equivocal MRI findings. In such cases, discography may have some benefit in localizing a symptomatic disc as the etiology of nonradicular back pain.
    • A positive discogram must include a concordant pain response. This includes reproduction of symptoms upon injection of a symptomatic disc, a nonpainful response upon injection of control discs, and observed annular pathology on postdiscography CT scan, if used.
    • Discography most often is used prior to contemplating intradiscal electrothermal annuloplasty, also referred to as intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), or surgical fusion for unremitting pain due to a symptomatic internal disc disruption. The characteristic feature of internal disc disruption is a radial fissure extending to the innervated outer third of the annulus fibrosus.
    • Some have found discography followed by a CT scan to be a more precise technique to delineate discovertebral pathology with sensitivities similar to or better than MRI and CT scan/myelography.
    • Discography must be used with care since a significant percentage of individuals with positive discograms improve without surgery. In addition, certain groups of patients tend to overreport pain during discographic injection.
      • Carragee et al found that provocative lumbar discography, when performed on volunteer subjects with no history of LBP, evoked little pain in those without chronic pain conditions, compensation issues, or abnormal psychometric testing.[6]
      • They found that when this procedure was performed in subjects with abnormal psychometric testing, particularly those with somatization features, chronic pain, and ongoing compensation litigation, the subjects frequently had very painful responses to disc injections.
      • In light of their findings, the usefulness of discography in this latter group of patients is questionable. At the very least, their study identifies the need for a proper screening method in patients undergoing this diagnostic modality.
    • Despite its flaws, discography still remains the only quasi-objective provocative test for disc-mediated pain. CT discography recently has received attention because it may be a good predictor of outcome following lumbar fusion for patients with intractable back pain.
Previous
Proceed to Treatment & Management
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Gerard A Malanga, MD  Director of Pain Management, Overlook Hospital; Director of PM&R Sports Medicine Fellowship, Atlantic Health; Clinical Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School; Clinical Chief, Rehabilitation Medicine and Electrodiagnosis, St Michael's Medical Center; Fellow, American College of Sports Medicine

Gerard A Malanga, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American College of Sports Medicine, North American Spine Society, and Physiatric Association of Spine, Sports and Occupational Rehabilitation

Disclosure: Cephalon Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Endo Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Forest Labs Honoraria Speaking and teaching

Coauthor(s)

Michal E Eisenberg, MD  Staff Physician, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, UMDNJ, New Jersey Medical School

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Joseph P Garry, MD, FACSM, FAAFP  Adjunct Associate Professor, Sports Medicine Faculty, Department of Family Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School

Joseph P Garry, MD, FACSM, FAAFP is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Sports Medicine, American Heart Association, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, and North American Primary Care Research Group

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD  Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine

Disclosure: eMedicine Salary Employment

Jon B Whitehurst, MD  Clinical Instructor of Surgery, University of Illinois College of Medicine; Partner, Rockford Orthopedic Associates; Orthopedic Chairman, Rockford Memorial Hospital

Jon B Whitehurst, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, and Arthroscopy Association of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Sherwin SW Ho, MD  Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Section of Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Chicago

Sherwin SW Ho, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, and Arthroscopy Association of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References

  1. Suratwala SJ, Pinto MR, Gilbert TJ, Winter RB, Wroblewski JM. Functional and radiological outcomes of 360 degrees fusion of three or more motion levels in the lumbar spine for degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). May 1 2009;34(10):E351-8. [Medline].

  2. Arnold PM, Robbins S, Paullus W, Faust S, Holt R, McGuire R. Clinical outcomes of lumbar degenerative disc disease treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion allograft spacer: a prospective, multicenter trial with 2-year follow-up. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). Jul 2009;38(7):E115-22. [Medline].

  3. Hosea TM, Gatt CJ Jr. Back pain in golf. Clin Sports Med. Jan 1996;15(1):37-53. [Medline].

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

  5. Videman T, Sarna S, Battié MC, Koskinen S, Gill K, Paananen H, et al. The long-term effects of physical loading and exercise lifestyles on back-related symptoms, disability, and spinal pathology among men. Spine. Mar 15 1995;20(6):699-709. [Medline].

  6. Carragee EJ, Tanner CM, Khurana S, Hayward C, Welsh J, Date E, et al. The rates of false-positive lumbar discography in select patients without low back symptoms. Spine. Jun 1 2000;25(11):1373-80; discussion 1381. [Medline].

  7. Khot A, Bowditch M, Powell J, Sharp D. The use of intradiscal steroid therapy for lumbar spinal discogenic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. Apr 15 2004;29(8):833-6; discussion 837. [Medline].

  8. Buttermann GR. The effect of spinal steroid injections for degenerative disc disease. Spine J. Sep-Oct 2004;4(5):495-505. [Medline].

  9. Buttermann GR. Treatment of lumbar disc herniation: epidural steroid injection compared with discectomy. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Apr 2004;86-A(4):670-9. [Medline].

  10. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine. Oct 15 2005;30(20):2312-20. [Medline].

  11. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A,. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine. Dec 1 2001;26(23):2521-32; discussion 2532-4. [Medline].

  12. Brox JI, Sørensen R, Friis A, Nygaard Ø, Indahl A, Keller A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine. Sep 1 2003;28(17):1913-21.

  13. Keller A, Brox JI, Gunderson R, Holm I, Friis A, Reikerås O. Trunk muscle strength, cross-sectional area, and density in patients with chronic low back pain randomized to lumbar fusion or cognitive intervention and exercises. Spine. Jan 1 2004;29(1):3-8. [Medline].

  14. Barendse GA, van Den Berg SG, Kessels AH, Weber WE, van Kleef M. Randomized controlled trial of percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation for chronic discogenic back pain: lack of effect from a 90-second 70 C lesion. Spine. Feb 1 2001;26(3):287-92. [Medline].

  15. [Best Evidence] Freeman BJ, Fraser RD, Cain CM, Hall DJ, Chapple DC. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial: intradiscal electrothermal therapy versus placebo for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. Spine. Nov 1 2005;30(21):2369-77; discussion 2378. [Medline].

  16. Pauza KJ, Howell S, Dreyfuss P, Peloza JH, Dawson K, Bogduk N. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intradiscal electrothermal therapy for the treatment of discogenic low back pain. Spine J. Jan-Feb 2004;4(1):27-35. [Medline].

  17. Park SY, Moon SH, Park MS, Kim HS, Choi YJ, Lee HM. Intradiscal electrothermal treatment for chronic lower back pain patients with internal disc disruption. Yonsei Med J. Aug 31 2005;46(4):539-45. [Medline].

  18. Boden SD, Swanson AL. An assessment of the early management of spine problems and appropriateness of diagnostic imaging utilization. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. May 1998;9(2):411-7, viii. [Medline].

  19. Bogduk N, Modic MT. Lumbar discography. Spine. Feb 1 1996;21(3):402-4. [Medline].

  20. Buschbacher R. The aging athlete's spine. J Back Musculoskel Rehabil. 1995;5:55-74.

  21. Dawson E, Bernbeck J. The surgical treatment of low back pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. May 1998;9(2):489-95, x. [Medline].

  22. Dreisinger TE, Nelson B. Management of back pain in athletes. Sports Med. Apr 1996;21(4):313-20. [Medline].

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

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

  25. Goins ML, Wimberley DW, Yuan PS, Fitzhenry LN, Vaccaro AR. Nucleus pulposus replacement: an emerging technology. Spine J. Nov-Dec 2005;5(6 Suppl):317S-324S. [Medline].

  26. Greenan TJ. Diagnostic imaging of sports-related spinal disorders. Clin Sports Med. Jul 1993;12(3):487-505. [Medline].

  27. Hackley DR, Wiesel SW. The lumbar spine in the aging athlete. Clin Sports Med. Jul 1993;12(3):465-8. [Medline].

  28. Hession WG, Stanczak JD, Davis KW, Choi JJ. Epidural steroid injections. Semin Roentgenol. Jan 2004;39(1):7-23. [Medline].

  29. Hickey DS, Hukins DW. Relation between the structure of the annulus fibrosus and the function and failure of the intervertebral disc. Spine. Mar-Apr 1980;5(2):106-16. [Medline].

  30. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. Jul 14 1994;331(2):69-73. [Medline].

  31. Kahler DM. Low back pain in athletes. J Sport Rehabil. 1993;2:63-78.

  32. Kaul MP, Herring SA. Rehabilitation of lumbar spine injuries in sports. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 1994;5(1):133-56.

  33. Malanga GA, Nadler SF. Nonoperative treatment of low back pain. Mayo Clin Proc. Nov 1999;74(11):1135-48. [Medline].

  34. Mayer HM. Total lumbar disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Aug 2005;87(8):1029-37.

  35. Modic MT. Degenerative disc disease and back pain. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. Aug 1999;7(3):481-91, viii. [Medline].

  36. Nachemson A, Zdeblick TA, O'Brien JP. Lumbar disc disease with discogenic pain. What surgical treatment is most effective?. Spine. Aug 1 1996;21(15):1835-8. [Medline].

  37. Nadler SF, Malanga GA, DePrince M, Stitik TP, Feinberg JH. The relationship between lower extremity injury, low back pain, and hip muscle strength in male and female collegiate athletes. Clin J Sport Med. Apr 2000;10(2):89-97. [Medline].

  38. Nadler SF, Wu KD, Galski T, Feinberg JH. Low back pain in college athletes. A prospective study correlating lower extremity overuse or acquired ligamentous laxity with low back pain. Spine. Apr 1 1998;23(7):828-33. [Medline].

  39. Rothman RH. The clinical syndrome of lumbar disc disease. Orthop Clin North Am. Jul 1971;2(2):463-75. [Medline].

  40. Sinaki M, Mokri B. Low Back Pain and Disorders of the Lumbar Spine. In: Braddom RL. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2nd. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1996:813-50.

  41. Tall RL, DeVault W. Spinal injury in sport: epidemiologic considerations. Clin Sports Med. Jul 1993;12(3):441-8. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Degenerative lumbar disc disease in the mature athlete. Degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, includingdecreased signal intensity and disc bulging at the L-3/4, L-4/5 and L-5/S-1 discs.
Degenerative lumbar disc disease in the mature athlete. The process of disc degeneration following internal discdisruption and herniation.
Degenerative lumbar disc disease in the mature athlete. The various forces placed upon the discs of the lumbarspine that can result in degenerative changes.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.