The Spine Journal
Volume 6, Issue 4 , Pages 370-379, July 2006

Clinical predictors of screening lumbar zygapophyseal joint blocks: development of clinical prediction rules

  • Mark Laslett, PT, PhD

      Affiliations

    • PhysioSouth, Moorhouse Medical Centre, 3 Pilgrim Place, Christchurch, 8002, New Zealand
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. PhysioSouth @ Moorhouse Medical Centre, 3 Pilgrim Place, Christchurch, 8002, New Zealand. Tel.: +64-3-377-0162; fax: +64-3-377-0614.
  • ,
  • Barry McDonald, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Massey University, Institute of Information and Mathematical Sciences, Albany Campus, Auckland, New Zealand
  • ,
  • Charles N. Aprill, MD

      Affiliations

    • Magnolia Diagnostics, 2718 Cadiz St., New Orleans, LA 70115, USA
  • ,
  • Hans Tropp, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopedics, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden 5-581 83
  • ,
  • Birgitta Őberg, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department for Health and Society, Physiotherapy, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden 5-581 83

Received 10 December 2004; accepted 14 January 2006.

Abstract 

Background

Only controlled intra-articular zygapophyseal joint (ZJ) injections or medial branch blocks can diagnose ZJ-mediated low back pain. The low prevalence of ZJ pain implies that identification of clinical predictors of a positive response to a screening block is needed.

Purpose

To estimate the predictive power of clinical findings in relation to pain reduction after screening ZJ blocks.

Study design

As part of a wider prospective blinded study investigating diagnostic accuracy of clinical variables, a secondary analysis was carried out to seek evidence of variables potentially valuable as predictors of screening ZJ block outcomes.

Patient sample

Chronic low back pain patients received screening ZJ blocks (n=151) with 120 patients included in the analysis after exclusions.

Outcome measures

Pain intensity was measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale, and responses were categorized according to 75% through 95% or more pain reduction in 5% increments.

Methods

Patients completed pain drawings, questionnaires, and a clinical examination before screening lumbar ZJ blocks. History, demographic and clinical variables were evaluated in cross tabulation and regression analyses with diagnostic accuracy values calculated for variables and variable clusters in relation to different pain reduction standards.

Results

At the 75% pain reduction standard, 24.5% responded to screening ZJ blocks and 10.8% responded at the 95% standard. The centralization phenomenon is not associated with pain reduction using any standard. No variables were useful predictors of post–ZJ block pain reduction of less than 90%. Seven clinical findings were associated with 95% pain reduction after blocks. Five useful clinical prediction rules (CPRs) were found for ruling out a 95% pain reduction (100% sensitivity), and one CPR had a likelihood ratio of 9.7, producing a fivefold improvement in posttest probability.

Conclusions

A negative extension rotation test, the centralization phenomenon, and four CPRs effectively rule out pain ablation after screening ZJ block. One CPR generates a fivefold improvement in posttest probability of a negative or positive response to ZJ block.

Keywords: Chronic low back pain, Zygapophyseal joint blocks, Diagnosis, Diagnostic accuracy, Clinical examination, Clinical prediction rules

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 FDA device/drug status: not applicable.Supported by the International Spinal Injection Society, a New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists scholarship, and the New Zealand Manipulative Physiotherapists Education Trust Fund. Nothing of value received from a commercial entity related to this manuscript.

PII: S1529-9430(06)00016-7

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.01.004

The Spine Journal
Volume 6, Issue 4 , Pages 370-379, July 2006