Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions

  • Laxmaiah Manchikanti1Email author,
  • Mark V Boswell2,
  • Vijay Singh3,
  • Vidyasagar Pampati1,
  • Kim S Damron1 and
  • Carla D Beyer1
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders20045:15

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-5-15

Received: 21 November 2003

Accepted: 28 May 2004

Published: 28 May 2004

Abstract

Background

Facet joints are a clinically important source of chronic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the prevalence of facet joint pain by spinal region in patients with chronic spine pain referred to an interventional pain management practice.

Methods

Five hundred consecutive patients with chronic, non-specific spine pain were evaluated. The prevalence of facet joint pain was determined using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks (1% lidocaine or 1% lidocaine followed by 0.25% bupivacaine), in accordance with the criteria established by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). The study was performed in the United States in a non-university based ambulatory interventional pain management setting.

Results

The prevalence of facet joint pain in patients with chronic cervical spine pain was 55% 5(95% CI, 49% – 61%), with thoracic spine pain was 42% (95% CI, 30% – 53%), and in with lumbar spine pain was 31% (95% CI, 27% – 36%). The false-positive rate with single blocks with lidocaine was 63% (95% CI, 54% – 72%) in the cervical spine, 55% (95% CI, 39% – 78%) in the thoracic spine, and 27% (95% CI, 22% – 32%) in the lumbar spine.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that in an interventional pain management setting, facet joints are clinically important spinal pain generators in a significant proportion of patients with chronic spinal pain. Because these patients typically have failed conservative management, including physical therapy, chiropractic treatment and analgesics, they may benefit from specific interventions designed to manage facet joint pain.

Background

Pain emanating from various structures of the spine is a major cause of chronic pain problems [1, 2]. Linton et al [3] estimated the prevalence of spinal pain in the general population as 66%, with 44% of patients reporting pain in the cervical region, 56% in the lumbar region, and 15% in the thoracic region. Manchikanti et al [4] reported similar results. Despite the high prevalence of spinal pain, it has been suggested that a specific etiology of back pain can be diagnosed in only about 15% of patients with certainty based on clinical examination alone [59].

Bogduk [9] noted that a reductionist approach to chronic low back pain requires an anatomical diagnosis. Bogduk [10] identified four factors necessary for any structure to be deemed a cause of back pain: a nerve supply to the structure; the ability of the structure to cause pain similar to that seen clinically in normal volunteers; the structure's susceptibility to painful diseases or injuries; and demonstration that the structure can be a source of pain in patients using diagnostic techniques of known reliability and validity.

The facet or zygapophysial joints of the spine are well innervated by the medial branches of the dorsal rami [1115]. Facet joints have been shown capable of causing pain in the neck, upper and mid back, and low back with pain referred to the head or upper extremity, chest wall, and lower extremity in normal volunteers [1626]. They also have been shown to be a source of pain in patients with chronic spinal pain using diagnostic techniques of known reliability and validity [2, 2744]. Conversely, the reliability of physical examination in diagnosing the specific cause of back pain has been questioned [45]. Further, it has been shown that medical imaging provides little additional useful in identifying a precise anatomical diagnosis.

In the 1990s precision diagnostic blocks were developed, including facet joint blocks, provocative discography, and sacroiliac joint blocks [2]. Facet joints have been implicated as a cause of chronic spinal pain in 15% to 45% of patients with chronic low back pain [3239], 48% of patients with thoracic pain [43], and 54% to 67% of patients with chronic neck pain [3942]. These figures were based on responses to controlled diagnostic facet joint blocks performed in accordance with the criteria established by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) [46].

Schwarzer et al [32] determined that the prevalence of facet joint pain in patients with low back pain in the United States following an incident (work related, motor vehicle accident, or other causes) was 15%. The prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in a rheumatology practice in Australia was noted to be 40% [36]. Barnsley et al [40] and Lord et al [41] evaluated potential causes of chronic neck pain following whiplash injury in Australia and reported that the prevalence of facet joint pain was 54%. Manchikanti et al [3335, 3739, 43] sought to identify the influence of age, sex, weight, occupational injury, smoking, surgery, and whether or not single or multiple regions of the spine were symptomatic. They found a lower prevalence of facet joint pain in younger patients following occupational injury, surgery or when only the low back was involved. In addition, they estimated the prevalence of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet pain to be 60% [42], 48% [43], and 22%–45% [3335, 37, 38], respectively. However, the prevalence of facet joint pain by spinal region, in the context of the total spine has not been evaluated. Indeed, the relative involvement of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine is not known.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the prevalence of facet joint pain by spinal region in patients with chronic spine pain presenting to an interventional pain management practice for diagnosis and treatment. The study protocol determined the presence of facet joint pain using responses to controlled comparative local anesthetic facet joint nerve blocks, performed in accordance with IASP criteria.

Methods

This study evaluated 500 consecutive patients presenting with chronic neck, thoracic, or low back pain, or a combination thereof. Patients were managed by one physician in a non-university, private practice setting in the United States, offering comprehensive, interventional pain management services.

Inclusion criteria were as follows: Patients were 18 to 90 years of age, had pain for at least 6 months, and pain was non-specific rather than radicular in nature. Disc related pain with radicular symptoms was excluded in all patients based on radiologic or neurologic testing, lack of a neurological deficit, and no radicular symptoms or pain that involved predominantly the upper or lower extremity. All patients had failed conservative management, which included physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, exercises, drug therapy, bedrest, etc.

Work-up included a comprehensive history, physical examination, and evaluation of the results of prior procedures and investigations. Examinations and evaluations of patients were performed by one physician (LM). Of 585 potentially eligible patients, 500 patients agreed to participate in the study after the nature of the study and the potential hazards of the procedures were explained. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The study period lasted from January 2001 to February 2003.

Facet joint pain was investigated in all patients starting with diagnostic blocks using 1% lidocaine. Patients with lidocaine-positive results were further studied using 0.25% bupivacaine on a separate occasion, usually 3 to 4 weeks after the first injection. The blocks were performed on the ipsilateral side in patients with unilateral pain or bilaterally in patients with bilateral or axial pain. Blocks were performed at a minimum of two levels to block a single joint. Target joints were identified by the pain pattern, local or paramedian tenderness over the area of the facet joints, and reproduction of pain with deep pressure. Blocks were performed with intermittent fluoroscopic visualization using a 22-gauge, 2-inch spinal needle at each of the indicated medial branches in the cervical and thoracic spine, and with a 22-gauge, 3.5-inch spinal needle at each of the indicated medial branches at the L1–L4 levels and the L5 dorsal ramus at the L5 level of the lumbar spine. All blocks were performed by one physician (LM).

Target points were identified as described by Bogduk [28]. Intravenous access was established and light sedation with midazolam was offered to all patients. Each facet nerve was infiltrated with 0.5 mL of 1% lidocaine or 0.25% bupivacaine. A positive response was defined as at least 80% reduction of pain with previously painful movements as assessed using a verbal analog type of pain rating scale. Following each block, the patient was examined and asked to perform previously painful movements. To be considered positive, pain relief from a block had to last at least 2 hours when lidocaine was used, and at least 3 hours, or greater than the duration of relief with lidocaine, when bupivacaine was used. Any other response was considered as a negative outcome.

All patients were discharged one hour after completion of the diagnostic blocks. They were asked to note the time of return of pain on a discharge instruction sheet. All patients were contacted within 3 to 24 hours following the block by a registered nurse and responses were recorded. All patients judged to have a positive response with lidocaine blocks underwent subsequent bupivacaine blocks. Patients who were determined not to have facet joint pain were offered other diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, including discography, epidural injections, or sacroiliac joint injections.

Data were recorded on a Microsoft® Access® 97 database. The SPSS version 9.0 Statistical Package was used to generate frequency tables. The prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Differences in proportions were tested using the Chi-square test. Fischer's exact test was used whenever the expected value was less than five. Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was <0.05.

Results

Five hundred consecutive patients with chronic spine pain meeting inclusion criteria were studied. As shown in Table 1, 59% of the patients were female with an average age of 47 ± 0.7 years. Patients presenting with involvement of a single region or two regions were older than patients with involvement of three regions (P < 0.001).
Table 1

Demographic features

  

One Region (297)

Two Regions (182)

Three Regions (21)

Total (500)

Gender

Male

44% (131)

36% (66)

33% (7)

41.0% (204)

 

Female

56% (166)

64% (116)

67% (14)

59.0% (296)

Age (Yrs)

Range

19 – 90

20 – 83

22 – 63

19 – 90

 

Mean ± SEM

50* ± 1.0

44* ± 1.0

40 ± 2.9

47 ± 0.7

Height (inches)

Range

50 – 78

56 – 78

60 – 72

50 – 78

 

Mean ± SEM

67 ± 0.2

66 ± 0.3

66 ± 0.7

67 ± 0.4

Weight (lbs)

Range

95 – 370

92 – 350

102 – 330

92 – 370

 

Mean ± SEM

181 ± 2

180 ± 4

184+ 12

181 ± 3

* Indicates significant difference compared to the group with involvement of three regions (p < .001)

Table 2 illustrates salient features based on regional involvement, including duration, mode of onset, and distribution of pain; proportion of patients with previous surgery; and the number of joints involved. Depending on the regions involved, most patients had two or three symptomatic facet joints.
Table 2

Salient features based on regional involvementof the spine

  

Cervical (255)

Thoracic (72)

Lumbar (397)

Gender

Male

36% (92)

36% (26)

42% (166)

 

Female

64% (163)

64% (46)

58% (231)

Age (Yrs)

Range

19 – 82

20 – 83

20 – 90

 

Mean ± SEM

43 ± 0.9

44 ± 1.8

47 ± 0.8

Height (inches)

Range

50 ± 78

59 ± 76

56 ± 78

 

Mean ± SEM

67 ± 0.25

67 ± 0.44

67 ± 0.21

Weight (lbs)

Range

92 ± 350

100 ± 330

92 ± 370

 

Mean ± SEM

177 ± 3.10

173 ± 5.22

184 ± 2.51

Duration of Pain (months)

Range

6 ± 588

6 ± 495

6 ± 612

 

Mean ± SEM

96 ± 6.31

83 ± 10.82

106 ± 5.79

Mode of onset of pain

Gradual

51% (130)

58% (42)

50% (198)

 

Following an incident

49% (122)

42% (30)

50% (199)

Distribution of pain

Left

15% (39)

18%(13)

14%(54)

 

Right

16% (40)

18%(13)

14% (57)

 

Bilateral

69% (176)

64%(46)

72% (286)

Previous surgery

18% (44)

6% (4)

32% (127)

Number of joints involved

Two

26% (66)

6% (4)

79% (313)

 

Three

70% (179)

69% (50)

20% (80)

 

More than three

4% (10)

25% (18)

1% (4)

Table 3 illustrates the results of diagnostic blocks evaluating facet joint pain in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Lidocaine blocks were performed in each of these 500 patients in a total of 724 regions (i.e., cervical, thoracic, or lumbar). Two hundred twelve of 255 patients with pain in the cervical spine reported a definite response to initial lidocaine blocks, 53 of 72 patients with thoracic spine pain after lidocaine blocks and 198 of 397 patients with lumbar spine pain after lidocaine blocks.
Table 3

Results of single and double facet joint nerve blocks (Single blocks with lidocaine and double blocks with lidocaine and bupivacaine)

 

Cervical (255)

Thoracic (72)

Lumbar (397)

 

Double Blocks +

Double Blocks

Double Blocks

Single Blocks*

Positive

Negative

Positive

Negative

Positive

Negative

Positive

140

72

30

23

124

74

Negative

 

43

 

19

 

199

Prevalence

55% (95% CI 49% – 61%)

42% (95% CI 30% – 53%)

31% (95% CI 27% – 36%)

False positive rate

63% (95% CI 54% – 72%)

55% (95% CI 39% – 78%)

27% (95% CI 22% – 32%)

Note: * With single blocks in the cervical spine, 212 patients (ie, 140 + 72) had positive responses with lidocaine blocks; 53 patients with thoracic pain had positive responses; and 198 patients with lumbar pain had positive responses. + With double blocks, 140 patients with neck pain, 30 with thoracic pain and 124 with lumbar pain had positive responses.

Of the 212 patients in the lidocaine-positive cervical spine group, 140 patients (i.e., 55% of patients with cervical spine pain or 66% of the lidocaine-positive group) reported definite responses to bupivacaine blocks. Thirty patients in the lidocaine-positive thoracic group (i.e., 42% of patients with thoracic pain or 57% of the lidocaine-positive group) reported definite responses to bupivacaine blocks. One hundred twenty four patients of the 198 lidocaine-positive lumbar group (i.e., 31% of patients with lumbar pain or 63% of lidocaine-positive group) reported definite responses to bupivacaine blocks.

The double local anesthetic block group provided a prevalence rate of facet joint pain in patients with chronic cervical spine pain of 55% (95% CI, 49% – 61%); 42% (95% CI, 30% – 53%) with thoracic pain; and 31% (95% CI, 27% – 36%) with lumbar pain.

Table 4 illustrates the rate of facet joint involvement by specific region of the spine. Overall, facet joints were painful in at least one region of the spine in 43%, in at least two regions in 15%, and in all three regions in 2% of patients.
Table 4

Facet joint involvement by region on the basis of double nerve blocks

Double blocks

Number

% of positive

At least One region positive

500

43% (216)

At least Two regions positive

203

15% (73)

All three regions positive

21

2% (9)

In terms of the overall prevalence of facet joint pain, when considering the initial group of 500 patients with chronic neck, thoracic, or low back pain, or a combination thereof, cervical facet joints were symptomatic in 28%, thoracic facet joints in 6%, and lumbar facet joints in 25% of patients.

For purposes of calculating false-positive rates, all patients with no response to lidocaine were assumed to be true-negatives, and all patients with a positive response to lidocaine and a negative response to bupivacaine were considered to be false-positives. The resultant false-positive rate was 63% (95% CI, 54% – 72%) for the cervical spine, 55% (95% CI, 39% – 78%) for the thoracic spine, and 27% (95% CI, 22% – 32%) for the lumbar spine.

Discussion

This prospective study of patients with chronic non-specific spinal pain involving the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions, alone or in combination, demonstrated by spinal region that the prevalence of cervical facet (zygapophysial) joint pain in patients with neck pain was 55%, thoracic facet joint pain in patients with mid back or upper back pain was 42% and lumbar facet joint pain in patients with low back pain was 31%. The false positive rates were quite high with single blocks: 63% for the cervical spine, 53% for the thoracic spine and 27% for the lumbar spine. Out of 500 patients participating in the study, cervical facet joint pain was seen in 140 patients or 28%, thoracic facet joint pain was seen in 30 patients or 6%, and lumbar facet joint pain was seen in 124 patients or 25%. Facet joint pain occurred in at least one region of the spine in 43% of patients, in two regions in 15%, and in all three regions in 2% of patients.

This study also demonstrated bilateral involvement in 69% of patients in the cervical spine, 64% in the thoracic spine, and 72% in the lumbar spine. The majority of patients with cervical and thoracic spine had involvement of three joints, compared to the lumbar spine with involvement of two joints. A small proportion of patients had involvement of more than three joints. Mode of onset and duration of pain were similar in all regions.

Facet joints have been shown to be a source of chronic spinal pain by means of diagnostic techniques of known reliability and validity. Blocks of facet joints can be performed to test the hypothesis that the target joint is a source of the patient's pain [27]. Facet joints can be anesthetized with intraarticular injections of local anesthetic or by anesthetizing the medial branches of the dorsal rami that innervate the target joint. If pain is not relieved, the joint can not be considered the source of pain. The true source may be another facet joint or some other structure. True-positive responses are determined by performing controlled blocks, either in the form of placebo injections of normal saline or comparative local anesthetic blocks on two separate occasions, when the same joint is anesthetized using local anesthetics with different durations of action. The value and validity of medial branch blocks and comparative local anesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of facet joint pain has been demonstrated [2744, 5060]. Further, controlled blocks are the only reliable tool in diagnosing chronic spinal pain, because there are no clinical features or diagnostic imaging studies that can determine whether a facet joint is painful or not [5, 79, 11, 27, 29, 32, 34, 44, 5255, 6167].

This study may be criticized for not using placebo-controlled diagnostic blocks or intraarticular injections, and for not evaluating other potential sources of pain. First, we utilized comparative controlled diagnostic blocks based on ethical considerations, ease of enrollment, and clinical practice in the United States. Reliability of controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks has been proven by numerous controlled trials. Second, medial branch blocks are considered accurate, easily performed, and reliable. We felt it essential to evaluate the entire spine, rather than separate, isolated regions of the spine. Finally, the study was limited to evaluation of pain of facet joint origin. Evaluating other potential sources of pain in each individual patient with discography and sacroiliac joint injections is difficult and beyond the scope of the present study. Moreover, the reliability of selective nerve root blocks and trigger point injections for diagnostic purposes is not proven.

Conclusion

This study evaluated patients with chronic, non-specific spinal pain involving all three regions of the spine: cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. Painful cervical facets were identified in 55% of patients with neck pain, 42% of patients with thoracic pain, and 31% of patients with low back pain. False-positive rates after single injections were 63%, 55%, and 27% for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint blocks, respectively. Overall, of the 500 patients with chronic spinal pain evaluated in this study, 28% had painful cervical facets, 6% painful thoracic facets, and 25% painful lumbar facets. At least one region was involved in 43% of patients; at least two regions in 15% of patients and 2% of patients had painful facets in all three regions of the spine. Depending on the regions involved, most patients had two or three symptomatic facet joints.

Although single diagnostic blocks appear unreliable, with a relatively high false-positive rate, true-positive results obtained by performing two sets of diagnostic blocks on separate occasions indicate that facet joints are a cause of chronic spinal pain in nearly half of all patients with chronic spinal pain presenting to an interventional pain management practice. Because these patients typically have failed conservative management, including physical therapy, chiropractic treatment and analgesics, patients with chronic spinal pain may benefit from specific interventions designed to identify and eliminate facet joint pain.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank transcriptionist Tonie Hatton, clinical coordinators Kim Cash, RT, Doris Brandon, CST, Sue Wilson, ORT, and Victoria Hicks, CST, and medical records coordinators Marla K. Neihoff and Lorie A. Caldwell for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Pain Management Center of Paducah
(2)
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospitals of Cleveland
(3)
Pain Diagnostics Associates

References

  1. Lawrence RC, Helmick CG, Arnett FC: Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum. 1998, 41: 778-799. 10.1002/1529-0131(199805)41:5<778::AID-ART4>3.0.CO;2-V.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Manchikanti L, Staats PS, Singh V, Schultz DM, Vilims BD, Jasper JF, Kloth DS, Trescot AM, Hansen HC, Falasca TD, Racz GB, Deer T, Burton AW, Helm S, Lou L, Bakhit CE, Dunbar EE, Atluri SL, Calodney AK, Hassenbusch S, Feler CA: Evidence-based practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2003, 6: 3-80. [http://www.asipp.org/documents/Guidelines%202003.pdf]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Linton SJ, Hellsing AL, Hallden K: A population based study of spinal pain among 35–45-year old individuals. Spine. 1998, 23: 1457-1463. 10.1097/00007632-199807010-00006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Manchikanti L, Pampati V: Research designs in interventional pain management: Is randomization superior, desirable or essential?. Pain Physician. 2002, 5: 275-284. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/JULY-2002/Vol-5-3-page275.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Deyo RA, Weinstein JN: Low back pain. N Engl J Med. 2001, 344: 363-370. 10.1056/NEJM200102013440508.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kirwan EO: Back pain. In Text Book of Pain. Edited by: Wall PD, Melzack R. 1989, Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 335-340. 2Google Scholar
  7. Deyo RA, Rainville J, Kent DL: What can the history and physical examination tell us about low back pain?. JAMA. 1992, 268: 760-765. 10.1001/jama.268.6.760.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogduk N, McGuirk B: Causes and sources of chronic low back pain. In Medical Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back pain. An Evidence-Based Approach: Pain Research and Clinical Management. Edited by: Bogduk N, McGuirk B. 2002, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, 13: 115-126.Google Scholar
  9. Bogduk N, McGuirk B: An algorithm for precision diagnosis. In Medical Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back pain. An Evidence-Based Approach: Pain Research and Clinical Management. Edited by: Bogduk N, McGuirk B. 2002, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, 13: 177-186.Google Scholar
  10. Bogduk N: Low back pain. In Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine and Sacrum. Edited by: Bogduk N. 1997, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 187-214. 3Google Scholar
  11. Bogduk N: The clinical anatomy of the cervical dorsal rami. Spine. 1982, 7: 35-45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Chua WH, Bogduk N: The surgical anatomy of thoracic facet denervation. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1995, 136: 140-144.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Bogduk N, Wilson AS, Tynan W: The human lumbar dorsal rami. J Anat. 1982, 134: 383-397. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7076562]PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Stilwell DL: The nerve supply of the vertebral column and its associated structures in the monkey. Anat Rec. 1956, 125: 139-169.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavanaugh JM, Ozaktay AC, Yamashita HT, King AI: Lumbar facet pain: Biomechanics, neuroanatomy, and neurophysiology. J Biomech. 1996, 29: 1117-1129. 10.1016/0021-9290(96)00023-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fukui S, Ohseto K, Shiotani M, Ohno K, Karasawa H, Naganuma Y, Yuda Y: Referred pain distribution of the cervical zygapophyseal joints and cervical dorsal rami. Pain. 1996, 68: 79-83. 10.1016/S0304-3959(96)03173-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dwyer A, Aprill C, Bogduk N: Cervical zygapophyseal joint pain patterns. I: A study in normal volunteers. Spine. 1990, 6: 453-457.Google Scholar
  18. Aprill C, Dwyer A, Bogduk N: The prevalence of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain patterns. II: A clinical evaluation. Spine. 1990, 6: 458-461.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Pawl RP: Headache, cervical spondylosis, and anterior cervical fusion. Surg Ann. 1977, 9: 391-498.Google Scholar
  20. Dreyfuss P, Tibiletti C, Dreyer SJ: Thoracic zygapophyseal joint pain patterns: A study in normal volunteers. Spine. 1994, 19: 807-811.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mooney V, Robertson J: The facet syndrome. Clin Orthop. 1976, 115: 149-156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McCall IW, Park WM, O'Brien JP: Induced pain referral from posterior elements in normal subjects. Spine. 1979, 4: 441-446.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Marks R: Distribution of pain provoked from lumbar facet joints and related structures during diagnostic spinal infiltration. Pain. 1989, 39: 37-40. 10.1016/0304-3959(89)90173-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fukui S, Ohseto K, Shiotani M, Ohno K, Karasawa H, Naganuma Y: Distribution of referral pain from the lumbar zygapophyseal joints and dorsal rami. Clin J Pain. 1997, 13: 303-307. 10.1097/00002508-199712000-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirsch C, Ingelmark BE, Miller M: The anatomical basis for low back pain. Acta Orthop Scand. 1963, 33: 1-17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Windsor RE, King FJ, Roman SJ, Tata NS, Cone-Sullivan LA, Thampi S, Acebey M, Gilhool JJ, Rao R, Sugar R: Electrical stimulation induced lumbar medial branch referral patterns. Pain Physician. 2002, 5: 347-353. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/Oct-2002/Vol-5-4-page347-357.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Bogduk N: International Spinal Injection Society guidelines for the performance of spinal injection procedures. Part 1: Zygapophyseal joint blocks. Clin J Pain. 1997, 13: 285-302. 10.1097/00002508-199712000-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Boswell MV, Singh V, Staats PS, Hirsch JA: Accuracy of precision diagnostic blocks in the diagnosis of chronic spinal pain of facet or zygapophysial joint origin. Pain Physician. 2003, 6: 449-456. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/october-2003/Vol-6-4-page449-456.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Bogduk N, Lord S: Cervical zygapophysial joint pain. Neurosurgery. 1998, 8: 107-117.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N: Comparative local anesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of cervical zygapophysial joints pain. Pain. 1993, 55: 99-106. 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90189-V.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lord SM, Barnsley L, Bogduk N: The utility of comparative local anesthetic blocks versus placebo-controlled blocks for the diagnosis of cervical zygapophysial joint pain. Clin J Pain. 1995, 11: 208-213.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Derby R, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N: Clinical features of patients with pain stemming from the lumbar zygapophysial joints. Is the lumbar facet syndrome a clinical entity?. Spine. 1994, 19: 1132-1137.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Fellows B, Pakanati RR: Prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in chronic low back pain. Pain Physician. 1999, 2: 59-64. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/vol23p59.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Fellows B, Baha A: The inability of the clinical picture to characterize pain from facet joints. Pain Physician. 2000, 3: 158-166. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/vol32p158.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Fellows B, Bakhit C: The diagnostic validity and therapeutic value of medial branch blocks with or without adjuvants. Curr Rev Pain. 2000, 4: 337-344.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwarzer AC, Wang SC, Bogduk N, McNaught PJ, Laurent R: Prevalence and clinical features of lumbar zygapophysial joint pain: A study in an Australian population with chronic low back pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 1995, 54: 100-106.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Pampati V, Damron K, Barnhill R, Beyer C, Cash K: Evaluation of the relative contributions of various structures in chronic low back pain. Pain Physician. 2001, 4: 308-316. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/vol44P308.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Manchikanti L, Hirsch JA, Pampati V: Chronic low back pain of facet (zygapophysial) joint origin: Is there a difference based on involvement of single or multiple spinal regions?. Pain Physician. 2003, 6: 399-405. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/october-2003/Vol-6-4-page399-405.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Pampati V, Damron K, Beyer C, Barnhill R: Is there correlation of facet joint pain in lumbar and cervical spine?. Pain Physician. 2002, 5: 365-371. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/Oct-2002/Vol-5-4-page365-371.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N: The prevalence of chronic cervical zygapophyseal joint pain after whiplash. Spine. 1995, 20: 20-26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lord SM, Barnsley L, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N: Chronic cervical zygapophysial joint pain with whiplash: A placebo-controlled prevalence study. Spine. 1996, 21: 1737-1745. 10.1097/00007632-199608010-00005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Rivera J, Pampati V: Prevalence of cervical facet joint pain in chronic neck pain. Pain Physician. 2002, 5: 243-249. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/JULY-2002/Vol-5-3-page243.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Pampati V, Beyer C, Damron K: Evaluation of the prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic thoracic pain. Pain Physician. 2002, 5: 354-359. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/Oct-2002/Vol-5-4-page354-359.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Bogduk N, McGuirk B: Precision diagnosis. In Medical Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back pain. An Evidence-Based Approach: Pain Research and Clinical Management. Edited by: Bogduk N, McGuirk B. 2002, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, 13: 169-176.Google Scholar
  45. Bogduk N, McGuirk B: Assessment. In Medical Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back pain. An Evidence-Based Approach : Pain Research and Clinical Management. Edited by: Bogduk N, McGuirk B. 2002, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, 13: 127-138.Google Scholar
  46. Merskey H, Bogduk N: Classification of chronic pain. In Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definition of Pain Terms. Edited by: Merskey H, Bogduk N. 1994, Seattle: IASP Press, 180-181. 2Google Scholar
  47. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Fellows B, Pampati V: Evaluation of influence of gender, occupational injury, and smoking on chronic low back pain of facet joint origin: A subgroup analysis. Pain Physician. 2002, 5: 30-35. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/jan_2002/page30.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Rivera J, Fellows B, Beyer C, Damron K: Role of facet joints in chronic low back pain in the elderly: A controlled comparative prevalence study. Pain Practice. 2001, 1: 332-337. 10.1046/j.1533-2500.2001.01034.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Baha A, Fellows B, Damron KS, Barnhill RC: Contribution of facet joints to chronic low back pain in postlumbar laminectomy syndrome: A controlled comparative prevalence evaluation. Pain Physician. 2001, 4: 175-180. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/vol42p175.htm]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Derby R, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N: The false-positive rate of uncontrolled diagnostic blocks of the lumbar zygapophysial joints. Pain. 1994, 58: 195-200. 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90199-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Derby R, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N: The relative contributions of the disc and zygapophyseal joint in chronic low back pain. Spine. 1994, 19: 801-806.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwarzer AC, Derby R, Aprill CN, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N: The value of the provocation response in lumbar zygapophysial joint injections. Clin J Pain. 1994, 10: 309-313.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Dreyfuss PH, Dreyer SJ, Herring SA: Contemporary concepts in spine care: Lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint injections. Spine. 1995, 20: 2040-2047.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Dreyfuss PH, Dreyer SJ: Lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint injections. Spine J. 2003, 3: 50S-59S. 10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00450-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Saal JS: General principles of diagnostic testing as related to painful lumbar spine disorders. Spine. 2002, 27: 2538-2545. 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Barnsley L, Lord S, Wallis B, Bogduk N: False-positive rates of cervical zygapophysial joint blocks. Clin J Pain. 1993, 9: 124-130.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Dreyfuss P, Schwarzer AC, Lau P, Bogduk N: Specificity of lumbar medial branch and L5 dorsal ramus blocks. Spine. 1997, 22: 895-902. 10.1097/00007632-199704150-00013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Barnsley L, Bogduk N: Medial branch blocks are specific for the diagnosis of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain. Reg Anesth. 1993, 18: 343-350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Kaplan M, Dreyfuss P, Halbrook B, Bogduk N: The ability of lumbar medial branch blocks to anesthetize the zygapophysial joint. Spine. 1998, 23: 1847-1852. 10.1097/00007632-199809010-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Pampati S: Are diagnostic lumbar medial branch blocks valid? Results of 2-year follow-up. Pain Physician. 2003, 5: 147-153. [http://www.asipp.org/Journal/April_2003/Vol-6-2-page147-153.htm]Google Scholar
  61. Revel ME, Listrat VM, Chevalier XJ, Dougados M, N'guyen MP, Vallee C, Wybier M, Gires F, Amor B: Facet joint block for low back pain: Identifying predictors of a good response. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992, 73: 824-828.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Revel M, Poiraudeau S, Auleley GR, Payan C, Denke A, Nguyen M, Chevrot A, Fermanian J: Capacity of the clinical picture to characterize low back pain relieved by facet joint anesthesia. Proposed criteria to identify patients with painful facet joints. Spine. 1998, 23: 1972-1977. 10.1097/00007632-199809150-00011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwarzer AC, Scott AM, Wang SC, Hoschl R, Wiseman JC, Copper RA: The role of bone scintigraphy in chronic low back pain: A comparison of SPECT and planar images and zygapophysial joint injection. Aust NZJ Med. 1992, 22: 185-Google Scholar
  64. Schwarzer AC, Derby R, Aprill CN, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N: Pain from the lumbar zygapophysial joints A test of two models. J Spinal Disord. 1994, 7: 331-336.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwarzer AC, Wang SC, O'Driscoll D, Harrington T, Bogduk N, Laurent R: The ability of computed tomography to identify a painful zygapophysial joint in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine. 1995, 20: 907-912.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor JR, Twomey LT: Acute injuries to cervical joints: An autopsy study of neck sprain. Spine. 1993, 18: 1115-1122.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Woodring JH, Goldstein SJ: Fractures of the articular processes of the cervical spine. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982, 139: 341-344.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/5/15/prepub

Copyright

© Manchikanti et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2004

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.

Comments

Advertisement