The interobserver reliability of detecting a high-intensity zone and the positive predictive value of the presence of a high-intensity zone for detecting a severely disrupted and exactly painful disc were much lower than previous studies have shown. The relatively low positive predictive value may be attributable to differences in sample characteristics or procedural variations, or suggest that a high-intensity zone is not indicative of exactly painful internal intervertebral disc disruption.

4.

Purpose It is not uncommon for patients to undergo less invasive spine surgery (LISS) prior to succumbing to lumbar fusion; however, the effect of failed LISS on subsequent fusion outcomes is relatively unknown. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients who suffered failed LISS would afford inferior subsequent fusion outcomes when compared to patients who did not have prior LISS. Methods After IRB approval, registry from a spine surgeon was queried for consecutive patients who underwent fusion for intractable low back pain. The 47 qualifying patients were enrolled and split into two groups based upon a history for prior LISS: a prior surgery group (PSG) and a non-prior surgery group (nPSG). Results Typical postoperative outcome questionnaires, which were available in 80.9 % of the patients (38/47) at an average time point of 40.4 months (range, 13.5-66.1 months), were comparatively analysed and failed to demonstrate significant difference between the groups, e.g. PSG v. nPSG: ODI-14.6± 10.9 vs. 17.2±19.4 (P =0.60); SF12-PCS-10.9±11.0 vs. 8.7± 12.4 (p =0.59); bNRS-3.0 (range −2-7) vs. 2.0 (range −3-8) (p =0.91). Patient satisfaction, return to work rates, peri-operative complications, success of fusion and rate of revision surgery were also not different.Conclusions Although limited by size and retrospective design, the results of this rare investigation suggest that patients who experience a failed LISS prior to undergoing fusion will not suffer inferior fusion outcomes when compared to patients who did not undergo prior LISS.

Background: The currently reported incidence of primary sacroiliac joint (SIj) pathology ranges from 15% to 30%. The differential diagnosis of SIj region pain includes pain generated from the lumbar spine, the SIj, and the hip joint. The origins of SIj dysfunctions are controversial and pain generation from this joint has been questioned. Purpose: Retrospectively analyze the relative incidence of lumbar spine, SIj, and hip joint etiologies in patients complaining of ≥50% SIj region pain. Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort case series. Methods: Inclusion criteria: chief complaint SIj pain (≥50% of overall complaint). In total, 124 patients charts were reviewed from a single spine surgeon’s clinic. All patients were evaluated by the same 2 practitioners and all cases were reviewed for clinical examination findings, diagnostic tests performed, final diagnosis, treatment, and clinical follow-up. Results: After complete diagnostic workup, 112 (90%) had lumbar spine pain, 5 (4%) had hip pain, 4 (3%) had primary SIj pain, and 3 (3%) had an undetermined source of pain upon initial diagnosis. SIj pain generation was confirmed via fluoroscopy-guided diagnostic injections. Following designated treatment, 11 (9%) patients returned to clinic at an average of 2.4 years complaining of continued/recurrent SIj region pain. Further investigation revealed 6 patients had confirmed pain generation from the lumbar spine, 3 patients had confirmed pain generation from the SIj, and 2 patients had undetermined sources of pain. Conclusions: The SIj is a rare pain generator (3%–6%) in patients complaining of ≥50% SIj region pain and is a common site of referral pain from the lumbar spine (88%–90%). Clinicians ought to quantify areas of pain (via percent of overall complaint) when interviewing their patients complaining of low back pain to distinguish potential pain generators. Recommended breakdown of areas of interest include axial low back, SIj region, buttock/leg, groin/anterior thigh.

In comparison to the 'no drape' condition, the accuracy error of 0.11 mm when using a 4MM film drape is minimal and clinically insignificant.