Acute Lumbar Disk Pain: Navigating Evaluation and Treatment Choices



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

Am Fam Physician. 2008 Oct 1;78(7):835-842.

  Patient information: See related handout on treating low back pain from a disk injury, written by the authors of this article.

Acute lumbar disk herniations are the most common cause of sciatica. After excluding emergent causes, such as cauda equina syndrome, epidural abscess, fracture, or malignancy, a six-week trial of conservative management is indicated. Patients should be advised to stay active. If symptoms persist after six weeks, or if there is worsening neurologic function, imaging and invasive procedures may be considered. Most patients with lumbar disk herniations improve over six weeks. Because there is no difference in outcomes between surgical and conservative treatment after two years, patient preference and the severity of the disability from the pain should be considered when choosing treatment modalities. If a disk herniation is identified that correlates with physical findings, surgical diskectomy may improve symptoms more quickly than continued conservative management. Epidural steroid injections can also provide short-term relief.

Low back pain is one of the most common reasons patients present to primary care practices, and is a leading cause of job-related disability in the United States.1  Radiating acute lumbar back pain can indicate severe neurologic sequelae that must first be ruled out as causes of the pain (Table 1). Cauda equina syndrome, neoplasm, infection, and fracture may represent emergent situations that require expeditious evaluation and treatment. Physicians must investigate “red-flag” findings (Table 22) that are indicators of these serious conditions.

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendation Evidence rating References Comments

Patients with acute lumbar pain should be advised to stay active.

A

16

Systematic review

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and muscle relaxants may be effective for nonspecific low back pain, but have not been extensively studied with lumbar disk herniation pain.

B

1720

Systematic reviews and conflicting RCTs

Systemic steroids are no better than placebo in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation pain.

A

21

Consistent RCTs

Epidural steroid injections for acute lumbar disk herniation may modestly improve pain in the short-term, but do not impact long-term outcomes.

A

22, 31

Systematic reviews

If red-flag findings are absent, a patient with sciatica should try conservative management for up to six weeks before obtaining imaging and considering surgical approaches.

A

11

Systematic review

Selected patients with lumbar disk herniation pain not improving after six weeks of conservative management may benefit from diskectomy for faster clinical relief.

A

11

Systematic review

Diskectomy has similar long-term outcomes as conservative or nonsurgical management.

A

12, 13

Consistent RCTs


RCT = randomized controlled trial.

A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, go to http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

View Table

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendation Evidence rating References Comments

Patients with acute lumbar pain should be advised to stay active.

A

16

Systematic review

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and muscle relaxants may be effective for nonspecific low back pain, but have not been extensively studied with lumbar disk herniation pain.

B

1720

Systematic reviews and conflicting RCTs

Systemic steroids are no better than placebo in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation pain.

A

21

Consistent RCTs

Epidural steroid injections for acute lumbar disk herniation may modestly improve pain in the short-term, but do not impact long-term outcomes.

A

22, 31

Systematic reviews

If red-flag findings are absent, a patient with sciatica should try conservative management for up to six weeks before obtaining imaging and considering surgical approaches.

A

11

Systematic review

Selected patients with lumbar disk herniation pain not improving after six weeks of conservative management may benefit from diskectomy for faster clinical relief.

A

11

Systematic review

Diskectomy has similar long-term outcomes as conservative or nonsurgical management.

A

12, 13

Consistent RCTs


RCT = randomized controlled trial.

A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, go to http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.

Table 1.

Differential Diagnosis for Radiating Acute Lumbar Pain

Cauda equina syndrome

Facet arthropathy

Greater trochanteric bursitis

Iliotibial band syndrome

Lumbar disk herniation

Meralgia paresthetica

Piriformis syndrome

Pseudoclaudication

Sacroiliitis

Spinal neoplasms

Spinal stenosis

Vertebral lesions (fracture or infection)

Table 1.   Differential Diagnosis for Radiating Acute Lumbar Pain

View Table

Table 1.

Differential Diagnosis for Radiating Acute Lumbar Pain

Cauda equina syndrome

Facet arthropathy

Greater trochanteric bursitis

Iliotibial band syndrome

Lumbar disk herniation

Meralgia paresthetica

Piriformis syndrome

Pseudoclaudication

Sacroiliitis

Spinal neoplasms

Spinal stenosis

Vertebral lesions (fracture or infection)

Table 2.

“Red-Flag” Findings and Associated Spinal Disorders

Findings Associated spinal disorder

Fecal incontinence

Cauda equine syndrome

Saddle anesthesia

Urinary retention

Immunosuppression

Infection

Intravenous drug use

Unexplained fever

Chronic steroid use

Fracture or infection

Osteoporosis

Fracture

Significant trauma at any age

Older than 50 years, and mild trauma

Neoplasm or fracture

History of cancer (i.e., weight loss)

Neoplasm

Unexplained weight loss

Focal neurologic deficit progressive or disabling symptoms

Any of the above

No improvement after six weeks of conservative management


Information from reference 2.

Table 2.   “Red-Flag” Findings and Associated Spinal Disorders

View Table

Table 2.

“Red-Flag” Findings and Associated Spinal Disorders

Findings Associated spinal disorder

Fecal incontinence

Cauda equine syndrome

Saddle anesthesia

Urinary retention

Immunosuppression

Infection

Intravenous drug use

Unexplained fever

Chronic steroid use

Fracture or infection

Osteoporosis

Fracture

Significant trauma at any age

Older than 50 years, and mild trauma

Neoplasm or fracture

History of cancer (i.e., weight loss)

Neoplasm

Unexplained weight loss

Focal neurologic deficit progressive or disabling symptoms

Any of the above

No improvement after six weeks of conservative management


Information from reference 2.

Sciatica is defined as pain originating in the lower back and radiating down the posterior or lateral thigh.3 The evaluation for sciatica begins with excluding serious spinal diseases. In the absence of red-flag findings, the most common cause for sciatica is lumbar disk herniation. Only 4 percent of patients with acute lumbar pain with sciatica will have a radiologically detectable lumbar disk herniation,3 although 99 percent of patients with symptomatic lumbar disk herniation present with sciatica.4

Acute lumbar disk herniation can produce severe, function-limiting pain that usually resolves with conservative management. Because a small proportion of lumbar disk herniations can result in serious disability and progressive neurologic dysfunction, surgical treatments are sometimes indicated.

History and Physical Examination

Sciatic pain is not specific for lumbar disk herniation. Many other common conditions cause radiating pain similar to sciatica (Table 1). Symptoms that increase the specificity of sciatica from lumbar disk herniation include pain that is worse in the leg than in the back; a typical dermatomal distribution of neurologic symptoms (e.g., pain, numbness, cold sensation); and pain that is worse with the Valsalva maneuver (e.g., coughing, sneezing, straining).5 Although most patients with lumbar disk herniation present with sciatica, patients may also present with less common symptoms such as nonradiating pain and sensory/motor deficits. Patients with intellectual disabilities, neurologic conditions, dementia, or communication disorders may not present with a complaint of pain, or exhibit typical pain behavior. Instead, they may present with a change in mobility or functional status.

When lumbar disk herniation is suspected, the physical examination should include a full examination of the pelvis and lower extremities, including a neurologic examination to evaluate sensation, strength, and reflexes, and provocative tests, such as the straight-leg-raise test. Although not specific, the straight-leg-raise test is the most sensitive test for lumbar disk herniation, with a negative result strongly indicating against lumbar disk herniation.4,6

The straight-leg-raise test can be performed with the patient supine or seated, although the supine test has higher sensitivity for lumbar disk herniation. With supine straight-leg-raise testing, a positive result has been defined as radiating pain observed at 30 to 70 degrees of hip flexion, with a smaller angle indicating a more significantly positive result. The crossed straight-leg-raise test is performed with the straight-leg-raise test. For this test, the physician observes for radiating pain in the affected leg while lifting the patient's opposite uninvolved leg. A positive crossed straight-leg-raise test is more specific for lumbar disk herniation, and it complements the sensitive uncrossed straight-leg-raise test.

Other physical findings specific for lumbar disk herniation include weak ankle dorsiflexion and absent ankle reflex, although most patients with acute lumbar disk herniation do not have these findings (Table 36). Calf muscle wasting is a late finding with lumbar disk herniation, taking four to six weeks to appear. It should alert the physician to severe neuromotor dysfunction or preexisting chronic neurologic impingement. Some findings may localize the radiculopathy to a specific nerve root4 (Figure 1). Clinical determination of the involved nerve root helps correlate symptoms with findings on imaging. Because radiologic lumbar disk herniation is common in asymptomatic people, this helps determine whether a lumbar disk herniation is linked to a patient's complaints. An abnormal patellar reflex predicts L3 or L4 radiculopathy. L5 radiculopathy is best predicted by sensory loss on the dorsum of the foot at the third metatarsophalangeal joint. The best predictors of acute S1 radiculopathy are weak ankle plantar flexion and sensory loss on the lateral heel.4,7 Although an asymmetric absent ankle reflex is specific for lumbar disk herniation,6 the predictive value is not high.4,7

Table 3.

Physical Examination Findings Associated with Lumbar Disk Herniation

Findings Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Positive likelihood ratio Negative likelihood ratio

Motor examination

Weak ankle dorsiflexion

54

89

4.9

0.5

Calf wasting*

29

94

5.2

0.8

Sensory examination

Leg sensation abnormal

16

86

NS

NS

Reflex examination

Abnormal ankle reflex

48

89

4.3

0.6

Provocative tests

Straight-leg-raise test

73 to 98

11 to 61

NS

0.2

Crossed straight-leg-raise test

23 to 43

88 to 98

4.3

0.8


NS = not significant.

*— Calf wasting may take four to six weeks to develop, and may represent chronic impingement or severe, progressive neuromotor dysfunction.

Adapted with permission from McGee S. Disorders of the nerve roots, plexi, and peripheral nerves. In: Evidence-Based Physical Diagnosis. Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders, 2001:809.

Table 3.   Physical Examination Findings Associated with Lumbar Disk Herniation

View Table

Table 3.

Physical Examination Findings Associated with Lumbar Disk Herniation

Findings Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Positive likelihood ratio Negative likelihood ratio

Motor examination

Weak ankle dorsiflexion

54

89

4.9

0.5

Calf wasting*

29

94

5.2

0.8

Sensory examination

Leg sensation abnormal

16

86

NS

NS

Reflex examination

Abnormal ankle reflex

48

89

4.3

0.6

Provocative tests

Straight-leg-raise test

73 to 98

11 to 61

NS

0.2

Crossed straight-leg-raise test

23 to 43

88 to 98

4.3

0.8


NS = not significant.

*— Calf wasting may take four to six weeks to develop, and may represent chronic impingement or severe, progressive neuromotor dysfunction.

Adapted with permission from McGee S. Disorders of the nerve roots, plexi, and peripheral nerves. In: Evidence-Based Physical Diagnosis. Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders, 2001:809.

Localizing Neurologic Levels

Figure 1.

Localizing neurologic levels.

View Large

Localizing Neurologic Levels


Figure 1.

Localizing neurologic levels.

Localizing Neurologic Levels


Figure 1.

Localizing neurologic levels.

Imaging

Patients with sciatica do not always require imaging of the spine. Radiographic findings of lumbar disk herniation are common in patients without back pain, and not all neurologic findings correlate with imaging results.3 The timing and modality of imaging is based on risk factors for serious spinal disease, the patient's clinical progress, and the characteristics of the imaging modality.

If red-flag findings (Table 22) are present, imaging is highly recommended. Emergent imaging is required with symptoms of cauda equina syndrome or lumbar myelopathy, such as saddle anesthesia, fecal incontinence, or urinary retention. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is preferred over other modalities (Figure 2813). If red-flag findings are absent, many clinical guidelines recommend delaying imaging until completing a six-week trial of conservative management.810

Treatment of Acute Lumbar Disk Herniation

Figure 2.

Algorithm for treatment of acute lumbar disk herniation. (CT = computed tomography; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.)

note: This algorithm is intended to summarize treatment recommendations from multiple sources and does not represent a validated clinical decision rule. Refer to text for evidence supporting each step in the algorithm.

Information from references 8 through 13.

View Large

Treatment of Acute Lumbar Disk Herniation


Figure 2.

Algorithm for treatment of acute lumbar disk herniation. (CT = computed tomography; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.)

note: This algorithm is intended to summarize treatment recommendations from multiple sources and does not represent a validated clinical decision rule. Refer to text for evidence supporting each step in the algorithm.

Information from references 8 through 13.

Treatment of Acute Lumbar Disk Herniation


Figure 2.

Algorithm for treatment of acute lumbar disk herniation. (CT = computed tomography; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.)

note: This algorithm is intended to summarize treatment recommendations from multiple sources and does not represent a validated clinical decision rule. Refer to text for evidence supporting each step in the algorithm.

Information from references 8 through 13.

Imaging modalities evaluated to detect lumbar disk herniation include myelography, computed tomography (CT), CT myelography, and MRI (Table 4).3,14 Standard myelography and CT myelography are invasive procedures that carry more risk and are less predictive for lumbar disk herniation than standard CT or MRI. CT and MRI provide similar sensitivity and specificity for lumbar disk herniation, although MRI provides a more detailed evaluation of the nerve roots and soft tissues of the spine.3

Table 4.

Radiographic Findings with Lumbar Disk Herniation

Test Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Positive likelihood ratio Negative likelihood ratio

Myelography

82

67

CT

62 to 90

70 to 87

2.1 to 6.9

0.1 to 0.5

MRI

60 to 100

43 to 97

1.1 to 33

0 to 0.9


CT = computed tomography; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging.

Information from references 3 and 14.

Table 4.   Radiographic Findings with Lumbar Disk Herniation

View Table

Table 4.

Radiographic Findings with Lumbar Disk Herniation

Test Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Positive likelihood ratio Negative likelihood ratio

Myelography

82

67

CT

62 to 90

70 to 87

2.1 to 6.9

0.1 to 0.5

MRI

60 to 100

43 to 97

1.1 to 33

0 to 0.9


CT = computed tomography; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging.

Information from references 3 and 14.

Conservative Management

For 90 percent of patients with lumbar disk herniation, acute sciatica starts to improve within six weeks and resolves by 12 weeks with conservative care.15 Several nonsurgical treatments have proven effective in improving symptoms of lumbar disk herniation and should be considered first-line in the first six weeks of conservative management. Bed rest is less effective for sciatica than activity. In general, bed rest should be limited to avoid muscle deconditioning.16

Several medications have been used to treat lumbar disk herniation pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, and muscle relaxants have been shown to be effective in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain, but these therapies have not been as extensively studied with lumbar disk herniation pain.17,18 Because available studies of NSAIDs with lumbar disk herniation pain provide conflicting conclusions,19,20 and because the effectiveness of muscle relaxants and acetaminophen for lumbar disk herniation pain has not been studied, the role of these therapies remains unclear. Systemic corticosteroids are no better than placebo for lumbar disk herniation pain21 and have no role in conservative management. Opioid analgesics have not been studied for lumbar disk herniation pain, but are generally considered standard conservative therapy for patients with severe, function-limiting pain.

Physical therapy typically has had a role in conservative management of lumbar disk herniation, although best evidence suggests there is little to support its effectiveness for improving pain or functional status.22 Cost-effectiveness analysis concludes that physical therapy is no more cost-effective than usual conservative management without physical therapy.23 The effectiveness of physical therapy modalities, including therapeutic ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and traction is difficult to assess because of limited quantity and quality of studies. Therapeutic ultrasound and TENS may provide short-term benefit,24,25 but data on traction are conflicting, with recent systematic reviews concluding that traction is not effective.26

Studies evaluating spinal manipulation for lumbar disk herniation have had conflicting results. Although one systematic review concludes that manipulation can be safely incorporated as a component of conservative management,27 later meta-analyses have found no benefit of manipulation over other conservative therapies.22,28 A subsequent study comparing manipulation with sham manipulation found that manipulation significantly improved pain.29 More high-quality studies are needed to determine the role of spinal manipulation in the management of lumbar disk herniation.

Cognitive interventions involve educating the patient to stay active and avoid activities that could worsen the pain. One study compared disability outcomes in patients with a herniated lumbar disk using cognitive intervention with exercise or surgery. No difference in disability outcomes were shown after one year of treatment; however, less fear and fewer avoidance behaviors were noted in patients given cognitive intervention.30

Nonsurgical Invasive Treatments

Invasive nonsurgical treatments involve injections into the epidural space or the herniated disk. Steroids have been used in both locations to reduce inflammation. Epidural steroid injections may provide moderate short-term improvement of pain, but do not impact long-term outcomes, such as impairment of function, need for surgery, and pain after three months.31 There is fair evidence that injections done under radiologic guidance are more effective than injections without this guidance in terms of improving pain at intermediate follow-up, and disability at short-term and intermediate follow-up.22 Epidural steroid injections have a role for certain patients in the management of short-term pain from lumbar disk herniation. A study of intradiscal corticosteroid injections has not shown benefit over placebo for treatment of discogenic pain.32

Chemonucleolysis is a procedure involving percutaneous injection of a substance into the disk to digest and ablate herniated disk material. Chymopapain, the papaya extract once used for this purpose, has been proven unsafe.11 Chemonucleolysis with other substances is in experimental stages, but presently has no role in the management of lumbar disk herniation.

Surgical Treatments

The indications for emergent surgical intervention for sciatica include cauda equina syndrome, epidural abscess, or severe and progressive neuromotor deficits. Patients with no improvement after six weeks of conservative management should undergo MRI or CT (Figure 2813). At this point, appropriate surgical candidates include patients with persistent neuromotor deficit, or severe sciatica with a positive straight-leg-raise test and imaging demonstrating lumbar disk herniation at the nerve root level correlating with the patient's examination findings.8,11,33

The purpose of surgery is to relieve nerve root compression or irritation from herniated disk material. Two surgical techniques include open diskectomy and microdiskectomy, which involves disk removal with the aid of a surgical microscope. These techniques have demonstrated similar surgical outcomes when compared directly.11 A systematic review and a recent large randomized controlled trial (RCT) show that surgical diskectomy in carefully selected patients with sciatica from lumbar disk herniation provided faster relief of pain and disability than patients who were treated with conservative management. Surgery has been shown to have greater improvement in pain and disability than conservative treatment in the first two years after surgery, after which the outcomes are no different.11,12

The optimal timing for surgery is still unclear, but most surgical studies have followed a minimum six-week trial of conservative therapy before surgical intervention. One recent RCT comparing prolonged conservative management with early microdiskectomy for lumbar disk herniation concluded that a longer course of conservative management before surgery (i.e., averaging more than 18 weeks) did not alter the incidence of adverse outcomes as a result of waiting longer before surgery.13

Patient Counseling

The natural history of lumbar disk herniation reveals that large herniations typically reabsorb with time,33 and symptoms will improve in most patients with conservative management alone. If imaging correlates well, surgical referral should be offered, but only as a potential means of expediting improvement in pain and disability over conservative management alone.11 Patients should be informed that the expected amount of pain and disability two years after surgery will be indistinguishable from the pain two years after prolonged conservative management. Patients who are not surgical candidates or who decide to continue conservative management should expect their clinical improvement to be slower than for patients who undergo surgery.12

The Authors

DAVID S. GREGORY, MD, FAAFP, is assistant professor of clinical family medicine with the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, and with Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. Dr. Gregory is a graduate of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at Eglin Air Force Base Regional Hospital in Florida. He completed a faculty development fellowship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and currently serves as director of pediatric education and didactic programs at the Lynchburg (Va.) Family Medicine Residency.

CRAIG K. SETO, MD, FAAFP, is assistant professor of family medicine, assistant residency director, and director of sports medicine training at the University of Virginia, Department of Family Medicine, Charlottesville. Dr. Seto earned his medical degree from Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and completed a family medicine residency at Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Ga. He completed fellowships in faculty development at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and in sports medicine at the Hughston Sports Medicine Clinic, Columbus, Ga.

GEORGE C. WORTLEY, MD, is assistant professor of clinical family medicine with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and with Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. Wortley is a graduate of State University of New York, Upstate Medical Center, in Syracuse, and completed a family medicine residency at Latrobe Area Hospital, Latrobe, Pa. He earned his certificate of added qualifications in sports medicine and currently serves as director of sports medicine curricula for the Lynchburg Family Medicine Residency.

CHRISTINE M. SHUGART, MD, is a primary care sports medicine fellow at Moses Cone Health System in Greensboro, N.C. She is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, where she also completed a residency in family medicine.

Address correspondence to David S. Gregory, MD, FAAFP, at 2097 Langhorne Rd., Lynchburg, VA 24501. Reprints are not available from the authors.

Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Health, United States, 2006, with chartbook on trends in the health of Americans. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2008.

2. Bradley WG Jr, Seidenwurm DJ, Brunberg JA, et al., for the Expert Panel on Neurologic Imaging. Low back pain. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 2005. http://www.guidelines.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=8599&nbr=004786&string=low+AND+back+AND+pain. Accessed June 13, 2008.

3. Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(7):586–597.

4. Kerr RS, Cadoux-Hudson TA, Adams CB. The value of accurate clinical assessment in the surgical management of lumbar disc protrusion. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988;51(2):169–173.

5. Vroomen PC, de Krom MC, Wilmink JT, Kester AD, Knottnerus JA. Diagnostic value of history and physical examination in patients suspected of lumbosacral nerve root compression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;72(5):630–634.

6. McGee S. Disorders of the nerve roots, plexi, and peripheral nerves. In: Evidence-Based Physical Diagnosis. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 2001:794–815.

7. Kortelainen P, Puranen J, Koivisto E, Lähde S. Symptoms and signs of sciatica and their relation to the localization of the lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 1985;10(1):88–92.

8. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI). Adult low back pain. Bloomington, Minn: Institute for clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI); 2006. http://www.guidelines.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=9863&nbr=005287&string=%22back+pain%22+and+evaluation. Accessed June 13, 2008.

9. University of Michigan Health System. Acute low back pain. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Health System; 2003. http://www.guidelines.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=4112&nbr=003157&string=%22back+pain%22+and+evaluation. Accessed June 13, 2008.

10. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. Criteria for MRI of the lumbar spine. http://www.lni.wa.gov/ClaimsIns/Files/OMD/MedTreat/mriLumbarSpine.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2008.

11. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD001350.

12. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441–2450.

13. Peul WC, van Houwelingen HC, van den Hout WB, et al., for the Leiden–The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2245–2256.

14. Schipper J, Kardaun JW, Braakman R, van Dongen KJ, Blaauw G. Lumbar disk herniation: diagnosis with CT or myelography. Radiology. 1987;165(1):227–231.

15. Saal JA, Saal JS. Nonoperative treatment of herniated lumbar intervertebral disc with radiculopathy. An outcome study. Spine. 1989;14(4):431–437.

16. Hagen KB, Hilde G, Jamtvedt G, Winnem M. Bed restfor acute low-back pain and sciatica. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(4):CD001254.

17. van Tulder MW, Scholten RJ, Koes BW, Deyo RA. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000396.

18. van Tulder MW, Touray T, Furlan AD, Solway S, Bouter LM, for the Cochrane Back Review Group. Muscle relaxants for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration. Spine. 2003;28(17):1978–1992.

19. Koes BW, Scholten RJ, Mens JM, Bouter LM. Efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(4):214–223.

20. Hatori M, Kokubun S. Clinical use of etodolac for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Curr Med Res Opin. 1999;15(3):193–201.

21. Finckh A, Zufferey P, Schurch MA, Balagué F, Waldburger M, So AK. Short-term efficacy of intravenous pulse glucocorticoids in acute discogenic sciatica. A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2006;31(4):377–381.

22. Luijsterburg PA, Verhagen AP, Ostelo RW, van Os TA, Peul WC, Koes BW. Effectiveness of conservative treatments for the lumbosacral radicular syndrome: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(7):881–899.

23. Luijsterburg PA, Lamers LM, Verhagen AP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of physical therapy and general practitioner care for sciatica. Spine. 2007;32(18):1942–1948.

24. Bloodworth DM, Nguyen BN, Garver W, et al. Comparison of stochastic vs. conventional transcutaneous electrical stimulation for pain modulation in patients with electromyographically documented radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;83(8):584–591.

25. Nwuga VC. Ultrasound in treatment of back pain resulting from prolapsed intervertebral disc. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983;64(2):88–89.

26. Clarke JA, van Tulder MW, Blomberg SE, et al. Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD003010.

27. Oliphant D. Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004;27(3):197–210.

28. Lisi AJ, Holmes EJ, Ammendolia C. High-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation for symptomatic lumbar disk disease: a systematic review of the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28(6):429–442.

29. Santilli V, Beghi E, Finucci S. Chiropractic manipulation in the treatment of acute back pain and sciatica with disc protrusion: a randomized double-blind clinical trial of active and simulated spinal manipulations. Spine J. 2006;6(2):131–137.

30. Brox JI, Sørensen R, Friis 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. 2003;28(17):1913–1921.

31. Armon C, Argoff CE, Samuels J, Backonja MM. Assessment: use of epidural steroid injections to treat radicular lumbosacral pain: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2007;68(10):723–729.

32. Khot A, Bowditch M, Powell J, Sharp D. The use of intradiscal steroid therapy for lumbar spinal discogenic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2004;29(8):833–836.

33. Rhee JM, Schaufele M, Abdu WA. Radiculopathy and the herniated lumbar disc. Controversies regarding pathophysiology and management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(9):2070–2080.


Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Download PDF
  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article