Vertebral body versus iliac crest bone marrow as a source of multipotential stromal cells: Comparison of processing techniques, tri-lineage differentiation and application on a scaffold for spine fusion.

By London Spine

Related Articles Vertebral body versus iliac crest bone marrow as a source of multipotential stromal cells: Comparison of processing techniques, tri-lineage differentiation and application on a scaffold for spine fusion. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0197969 Authors: Fragkakis EM, El-Jawhari JJ, Dunsmuir RA, Millner PA, Rao AS, Henshaw KT, Pountos I, Jones E, Giannoudis PV Abstract The potential…

Does the location of low back pain predict its source?

By London Spine
Related Articles

Does the location of low back pain predict its source?

PM R. 2011 Jan;3(1):33-9

Authors: Depalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Trussell BS, Saullo TR, Slipman CW

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive utility of the pattern of low back pain (LBP) in detecting the source of LBP as internal disk disruption (IDD), facet joint pain (FJP), or sacroiliac joint pain (SIJP).
DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
SETTING: University spine center.
PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 170 cases from 156 patients presenting with LBP whose low back disorder was definitively diagnosed. The mean age was 54.4 years (SD, 16.2) and median duration of LBP was 12 months (interquartile ranges, 6-32).
METHODS: Charts of consecutive LBP patients who underwent definitive diagnostic spinal procedures including provocation diskography, facet joint blocks, and sacroiliac joint blocks were retrospectively reviewed. Each patient with LBP was queried as to the exact location of their LBP: midline, defined as in-line with the spinous processes, and/or paramidline, defined as lateral to 1 fingerbreadth adjacent to the midline.
OUTCOME MEASURES: In patients with a definitive diagnosis for the source of LBP, the proportion of each diagnosed source of pain was calculated. χ(2) tests were used to identify differences in the percentages of midline and paramidline LBP among the groups of patients testing positive for IDD, FJP, or SIJP. Diagnostic measures of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic accuracy, and likelihood ratios of positive and negative tests using the presence/absence of midline and paramidline pain for the diagnosis of IDD, FJP, and SIJP were estimated.
RESULTS: With cases of IDD, significantly greater percentages of patients reported midline LBP (95.8%; χ(2) = 101.4, df = 2, P < .0001) as compared with cases of FJP (15.4%) or SIJP (12.9%). In cases of IDD, significantly lower percentages of patients reported paramidline pain (67.3%; χ(2) = 16.1, df = 2, P = .0003) as compared with cases of FJP (95.0%) or SIJ (96.0%). In cases of IDD, significantly greater percentages of patients reported midline LBP (95.8%; χ(2) = 101.4, df = 2, P < .0001) as compared with cases of FJP (15.4%) or SIJP (12.9%). The specificity of midline LBP for IDD, FJP, and SIJP was 74.8% (95% CI = 65.0%-82.9%), 28.0% (20.1%-37.0%), and 36.0% (28.0%-44.5%), respectively. The negative predictive value of paramidline LBP for IDD, FJP, and SIJP was 29.2% (95% CI = 12.6%-51.1%), 91.7% (73.0%-99.0%), and 95.8% (78.9%-99.9%). The diagnostic accuracy of midline LBP for IDD, FJP, and SIJP was 83.5%, 24.1%, and 31.8%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of midline LBP increases the probability of lumbar IDD and reduces the probability of symptomatic FJ and SIJ dysfunction. The presence of isolated paramidline LBP increases the probability of symptomatic FJ or SIJ but mildly reduces the likelihood of lumbar IDD.

PMID: 21257131 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]