Research ArticleLumbar Spine

Intraosseous Basivertebral Nerve Ablation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: 2-Year Results From a Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Sham-Controlled Multicenter Study

JEFFREY S. FISCHGRUND, ALFRED RHYNE, JÖRG FRANKE, RICK SASSO, SCOTT KITCHEL, HYUN BAE, CHRISTOPHER YEUNG, EERIC TRUUMEES, MICHAEL SCHAUFELE, PHILIP YUAN, PETER VAJKOCZY, MICHAEL DEPALMA, DAVID G. ANDERSON, LEE THIBODEAU and BERNHARD MEYER
International Journal of Spine Surgery April 2019, 13 (2) 110-119; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/6015

ABSTRACT

Background: The purpose of the present study is to report the 2-year clinical outcomes for chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients treated with radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the basivertebral nerve (BVN) in a randomized controlled trial that previously reported 1-year follow up.

Methods: A total of 147 patients were treated with RF ablation of the BVN in a randomized controlled trial designed to demonstrate safety and efficacy as part of a Food and Drug Administration-Investigational Device Exemption trial. Evaluations, including patient self-assessments, physical and neurological examinations, and safety assessments, were performed at 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively. Participants randomized to the sham control arm were allowed to cross to RF ablation at 12 months. Due to a high rate of crossover, RF ablation treated participants acted as their own control in a comparison to baseline for the 24-month outcomes.

Results: Clinical improvements in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Medical Outcomes Trust Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary were statistically significant compared to baseline at all follow-up time points through 2 years. The mean percent improvements in ODI and VAS compared to baseline at 2 years were 53.7 and 52.9%, respectively. Responder rates for ODI and VAS were also maintained through 2 years with patients showing clinically meaningful improvements in both: ODI ≥ 10-point improvement in 76.4% of patients and ODI ≥ 20-point improvement in 57.5%; VAS ≥ 1.5 cm improvement in 70.2% of patients.

Conclusions: Patients treated with RF ablation of the BVN for CLBP exhibited sustained clinical benefits in ODI and VAS and maintained high responder rates at 2 years following treatment. Basivertebral nerve ablation appears to be a durable, minimally invasive treatment for the relief of CLBP.

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is the most expensive occupational disorder in the United States and the leading cause of disability worldwide.1–3 There are no validated diagnostic reference standards for LBP, leading 85% of patients to be diagnosed with so-called nonspecific LBP.4–6 Absent a specific diagnosis, chronic LBP (CLBP) patients are treated with an assortment of costly interventions, including medications (opioid and nonopioid), physical therapy, manipulative therapy, massage therapy, bracing, and injections. Few of these therapies have Level I evidence supporting their effectiveness in the CLBP population. Eventually, a large number of these patients seeking pain relief undergo fusion surgery with its associated long rehabilitation time,7 modest outcomes,8,9 high costs,10–13 high complication rates and 2- to 4-year reoperation rates of 20%.13,14 The chronic nonspecific nature of CLBP also results in many individuals being prescribed opioid analgesics, whether or not they eventually undergo fusion surgery.15–18

Notwithstanding the nonspecific LBP descriptor, spine care practitioners have historically presumed that the intervertebral disc was the source of most CLBP.19–21 The discogenic LBP model holds that sensitized nociceptors within the posterior annulus of degenerating discs cause LBP. However, anatomic studies have shown that the vertebral endplate is actually the source of most of the pathologic innervation that occurs with disc degeneration. These studies suggest that, in some patients, the origin of LBP is the vertebral endplates, with pain transmitted via the basivertebral nerve (BVN).22–24

The BVN bundle, often in the form of paired nerves, originates from the sinuvertebral nerves and enters the vertebral body posteriorly via the central vascular foramen. It courses centrally within the vertebral body, generally following the basivertebral vessels and sending branches towards the endplates.25,26 An illustration of the BVN and vasculature anatomy is provided in Figure 1. Immunohistochemical analysis showed that the BVN contains Substance P, CGRP, and PGP 9.5 positive nerve fibers, substantiating the nerve's nociceptive role in the conduction of vertebrogenic pain signals in CLBP individuals.27–29

Figure 1
Figure 1

Basivertebral nerve (red) and vasculature (blue).

Compared with the density of nociceptors in normal endplate regions or in painful degenerated discs, BVN density is much higher in endplate regions with damage, linking these nerves to CLBP.22 As the disc and endplates degenerate, the communication between the bone marrow and the disc increases, due to the hydraulic disc/vertebra coupling and increased convective flow induced by cyclic spinal loading. This crosstalk that develops between the disc and bone marrow results in the release of inflammatory mediators. The persisting stimulus sets up a frustrated healing response, leading in some individuals to an escalating inflammatory response and the appearance of Modic changes (MCs) at the vertebral endplates.23,24,30 This inflammatory response is sensed by the BVN and transmitted to the central nervous system, then perceived as LBP.

Provocative discography has been used in the past to diagnose discogenic LBP. However, discography is currently controversial with some studies claiming a high false positive rate in certain populations and associating discograms with accelerated disc degeneration.31,32

Additionally, discography has been shown to result in deflection of the endplates with the suggestion that a positive discogram might be the result of pressurization of painful vertebral endplates.33

In contrast, vertebrogenic pain is diagnosed using MCs that are readily identifiable on routine MR imaging. Modic type endplate changes represent a classification for vertebral body endplate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signal, first described in 1988.34 Modic Type 1 and 2 changes are associated with degenerative disc disease and LBP.35 Studies have also shown that CLBP patients with MC are clinically different than CLBP patients without MC.36 Patients with MC report a greater frequency and duration of LBP episodes and seek care more often.37 Additionally, CLBP patients with Type 1 MC have poor outcomes relative to conservative treatment38,39 and have worse outcomes after discectomy.40

Utilizing the scientific foundations of a vertebrogenic origin for CLBP, a transpedicular, minimally invasive procedure using radiofrequency (RF) energy to ablate the BVN near the center of the vertebral body was developed. It was hypothesized that, once ablated, these nerves would no longer transmit pain signals. To test this theory, a 225-patient, Level I randomized controlled trial comparing treatment of CLBP with RF ablation of the BVN to a surgical sham control was performed. The initial, previously published results from this study demonstrated that intraosseous RF ablation of the BVN is a safe and effective treatment for CLBP in patients with Modic Type 1 or 2 abnormalities of the endplates.41 This study, in addition to the pilot study results, validated the use of MCs as a diagnostic criterion for vertebrogenic pain. We report on the 2-year clinical results for patients treated with RF ablation of the BVN in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Design

The original trial was a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, pivotal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) clinical trial (SMART Trial ClinicalTrials.gov—NCT01446419). The trial was conducted at 15 sites (202 patients) in the United States and 3 sites (23 patients) in Europe. The primary requirements for inclusion in the trial were CLBP with a duration greater than 6 months, CLBP nonresponsive to at least 6 months of nonsurgical management, and Modic Type 1 or 2 changes at the vertebral endplates of the levels targeted for treatment. Detailed information about the study design and randomization process were previously published.41 Primary inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Study Interventions

Patients were randomized 2:1 to either a RF ablation procedure or a sham control procedure. The RF ablation procedure consisted of thermal ablation of the BVN using a transpedicular delivery system (Intracept System, Relievant Medsystems, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). The Intracept procedure was performed under image guidance in an outpatient setting with thermal ablation for 15 minutes to create approximately a 1 cm spherical lesion within the vertebral body. Detailed information about the surgical technique was previously described.41 Patients in the sham arm underwent the same operating room protocol for the same overall duration of 60 to 90 minutes; however, the sham procedure consisted only of docking the introducer cannula 1–2 mm into the pedicle and simulating the RF ablation with an equivalent dwell time. To maintain blinding, the treating and follow-up physicians differed, and the patients were unaware of the randomization outcome for 1 year. All participants continued conservative therapy as prescribed at baseline. Additional medical therapies could be prescribed per the blinded follow-up investigator's discretion. For patients in the sham arm, there was an optional crossover component after all 12-month evaluations were performed.

Outcome Measures

Outcomes were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire and the Medical Outcomes Trust Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Back pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) on a 10-cm scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Physical and neurological examinations were performed at each follow-up visit. Patients attended follow-up visits at 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months during the first year of follow up.

The protocol was subsequently modified to include longer-term follow up to 24 months. During the second year, the treatment arm patients were followed for safety only at 18 months, and at 24 months for ODI, VAS, SF-36, as well as safety. Sham arm patients who did not choose to cross over to Intracept RF ablation treatment were also followed per this schedule. Participants who elected to cross to RF ablation were followed at 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months postprocedure. Of the 78 patients in the sham arm, 57 (73%) elected to cross over to receive the Intracept treatment. A flowchart that reflects study design and patient disposition is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Study design and patient disposition.

Magnetic resonance imaging (T1, T2, and STIR time constants) was performed at 6 weeks and 6 months after the index procedure. Targeting success for treatment was confirmed by an independent, blinded radiologist reviewer and was defined as overlap between the RF-created ablation zone and the terminus of the BVN at each level treated observed on 6-week MRI.

Statistical Methods

Two preplanned analysis groups were defined within the FDA approved IDE protocol which governed the original study. These were the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per-protocol (PP) populations. The ITT population consisted of the patients as randomized (ITT population: treatment arm n = 147, sham arm n = 78). As the study entailed randomization to a surgical procedure, the possibility of an unsuccessful procedure was admitted, with the most likely cause being failure of the RF generated lesion to be collocated with the terminus of the BVN. The PP population excluded patients that did not meet the minimum treatment requirement (incomplete procedures n = 1, failed targeting success n = 16) and 2 patients who were not adherent to the postprocedure protocol (PP population: treatment arm n = 128, sham arm n = 77). Detailed reasons for patients excluded from the PP population were previously reported.41 The 24-month demographic and safety results are reported for all treated patients; efficacy results are reported for the PP population who completed a 24-month evaluation.

Seventy-three percent of the sham patients elected to cross over to active treatment after 12 months of follow up; thus, a 24-month follow-up statistical comparison between arms cannot be performed due to a lack of statistical power. Therefore, an intrapatient comparison of patient-reported measures from baseline to each follow-up visit was performed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and treatment durability in RF ablation arm participants with 24-month data. The efficacy measures are summarized using descriptive statistics (eg, N, mean, standard deviation). Comparisons between the postoperative and baseline values were performed using a paired t test.

RESULTS

Demographics

Out of the 225 patients included in the original study, 147 patients were treated with RF ablation of the BVN and 78 with the sham control procedure. Patient characteristics between the 2 arms were previously reported as similar.41 Baseline information about the patients treated with RF ablation is listed in Table 2.

View this table:
Table 2

Patient demographics and baseline characteristics.

Treatment Success

All procedures were completed in the treatment arm except for 1 patient with extremely dense bone at S1. Targeting was adjudicated via imaging by a blinded independent radiologist and was deemed successful in 129 of 145 patients (89.0%), or in 300 of 317 treated vertebral bodies (94.6%). The most commonly treated levels were L5–S1 (85/146 patients) and L4–L5 (29/146) followed by L4–L5–S1 (23/146). An additional 5 patients were treated only at L3–L4 with 4 patients treated at L3–L4–L5.

Oswestry Disability Index

The primary efficacy endpoint for the original study was the 3-month change in ODI compared between the study arms. This comparison, as previously reported,41 found that at 3 months the PP treatment group exhibited a 20.5 least squares mean (LSM) improvement in ODI compared to a 15.2 LSM improvement in the sham group (P = .019).

Of the PP population treated with BVN ablation, 106 patients completed a 24-month follow-up visit. These patients exhibited a durable ODI mean improvement (23.4 points) at 24 months compared to the mean improvements observed during their first year of follow up (20.3, 20.8, and 19.8 points at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively). In terms of percent improvement in ODI from baseline, these results translate into mean percentage improvements of 53.7% at 24 months compared to 47.6, 48.2, and 46.2% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Oswestry Disability Index outcome results for all time points are shown in Table 3.

View this table:
Table 3

Patient reported outcomes by visit.

Using a 10-point improvement in ODI, the commonly accepted minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the treatment of CLBP,42,43 75.6% (96/127) of treated patients exhibited a successful response at 3 months. At 24 months, this result was sustained with 76.4% (81/106) of treated patients continuing to receive clinical benefit from BVN ablation. When considering a 20-point threshold for reduction in ODI, 48.0% (61/127) of treated patients showed such an improvement at 3 months and 57.5% (61/106) at 24 months.

Visual Analog Scale

The mean VAS pain score reported at baseline was 6.73 cm and improved by 2.76 and 3.59 cm at 12 and 24 months of follow up, respectively (see Table 3). When considering the results from the perspective of percentage improvement from baseline, the mean percent improvement in VAS at 24 months was 52.9 %, compared to 42.8, 44.2, and 40.1% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively.

At the primary 3-month time point, 65.4% (83/127) of patients met or exceeded the VAS MCID of 1.5 cm improvement.42 This VAS responder rate was sustained with 70.2% (73/104) of patients meeting or exceeding the 1.5 cm improvement in VAS at 24 months.

Medical Outcomes Trust Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary

The mean SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score reported at baseline was 33.50, which improved to 42.83 and 45.83 at 12 and 24 months of follow up, respectively. The mean improvement in the PCS score observed at 24 months was 11.84 and showed durability compared to the other study time points. The MCID for the PCS has been reported as 4.9.44 The SF-36 PCS results are reported for all study time points in Table 3.

Resource Utilization

Baseline characteristics of the PP patients who were treated with RF ablation and followed at 24 months (n = 106), showed that 68 (64.2%) of the patients had pain for more than 5 years, and 28 (26.4%) were taking opioids. Additionally, the underlying incidence of patients with previous spinal injections was 61 (57.5%).

Utilization of opioids was monitored at all follow-up time points through the first year of the trial. During the second year of follow up, documentation of opioid usage was not reliably available due to the infrequency of patient visits. In the above population, at 12 months of follow up, 60.7% of the patients who were taking opioids at the time of enrollment had reduced opioid medication, with 46.4% completely eliminating the use of opioids.

During the first year of follow up, the study protocol discouraged physicians from treating patients with spinal injections unless medically necessary. Following unblinding of patients after the 1-year study visit, patients were managed per standard clinical practice, and thus, the rate of interventions seen during the second year of follow up would no longer be expected to be biased by study design. At 24 months of follow up, in PP patients treated with ablation, 8 (7.5%) had spinal injections performed for either new onset or continuing LBP, a substantial decrease from the 61 (57.5%) who had reported prior injections at baseline.

Complications/Interventions

Adverse events (AEs) were continuously assessed during the study and reported as they occurred. Each AE was assessed by the study investigator for severity and relationship to the study device or procedure. An independent review of clinical trial execution and safety data was performed on a regular basis by an external data safety monitoring board (DSMB) throughout the course of the trial.

There were no device or procedure-related patient deaths, no unanticipated adverse device effects, and no device-related serious adverse events (SAEs) reported in the study. One device- related AE occurred in a sham patient, who crossed over to the active treatment at 1 year. The patient was being treated with high levels of hormone replacement therapy and developed a vertebral compression fracture. Further diagnostic workup revealed concomitant osteopenia. By 8 weeks, the fracture was healed with no further complications. Procedure-related events following the index procedures were minimal, and MRI evaluations at the 6-week and 6-month follow-up time points found no evidence of any spinal cord abnormalities, avascular necrosis, or accelerated disc degeneration (these results were previously reported).41

During the first year of follow up, 2 RF ablation-treated patients underwent surgical spine interventions. One was a lumbar fusion at the same level that was treated in the index procedure performed due to continuing LBP; the second procedure was a microdiscectomy performed due to a de novo disc herniation at the L2–L3 level, which was not the same level that was treated in the index procedure (index procedure was performed at L4–L5).

During year 2, 8 RF ablation treated patients exited the study to undergo other surgical therapies on the lumbar spine. Seven of these were lumbar fusion procedures performed at the same levels as the index procedures. It should be noted that 5 of these 7 procedures were performed by 1 investigational site following unblinding of the patients at the 12-month follow-up visit. The remaining procedure was a discectomy following an acute foraminal disc herniation that occurred at a different level than what was targeted in the index procedure.

DISCUSSION

There has been extensive direct evidence supporting the vertebral body as a source of LBP (ie, vertebrogenic pain) reported in the published literature.22,33,45–48 Additionally, the BVN within each vertebral body has been shown to be a source of transmission of vertebrogenic pain signals in CLBP individuals.25,26 Furthermore, correlation between vertebral body pathology (as demonstrated by MCs) and CLBP has also been reported.34,40–52 The SMART trial was designed to test the hypothesis that the BVN plays an important role in the transmission of pain signals in patients with CLBP and exhibiting Modic Type 1 and 2 endplate changes. Initial results of the SMART trial showed that thermal ablation of the BVN is a safe and effective treatment for CLBP patients with this indication.41

Longer-term results for patients who were treated with RF ablation show that the clinically meaningful improvements in ODI, VAS, and SF-36 PCS observed at 1 year are sustained through 2 years of follow up and are more than double the MCID for all measures. The mean percentage improvements in ODI and VAS compared to baseline at 2 years were 53.7 and 52.9%, respectively. Responder rates for ODI and VAS were also maintained through 2 years with patients showing clinically meaningful improvements in both: 76.4% of patients had ≥10-point ODI improvement and ODI ≥ 20-point improvement in 57.5%; 70.2% of patients had ≥1.5 cm VAS improvement.

The original study design compared results reported from patients treated with RF ablation to those treated with a sham control procedure through 12 months of follow up. After 12 months, all patients in the study were unblinded as to which treatment they had received. Sham patients were subsequently offered the opportunity to cross over to receive the RF ablation procedure, of which 73% elected active treatment. Comparisons between the original study arms could therefore not be performed for long-term evaluation of efficacy outcomes as the untreated, control population was too small for adequate statistical power.

Comparison to the crossover population was also not appropriate, as the patient-reported outcomes of this population at the time of crossover were no longer consistent with the original baseline status. The sham population experienced a large placebo response, as was discussed in the prior publication of the 1-year study results.41 Therefore, for the purpose of long-term evaluation of patient-reported outcomes, postoperative results were compared to baseline (preoperative) measurements, with each treated patient serving as their own control, consistent with other spine procedure trials.

Patient retention through 1 year of follow up in the study was excellent with 97.7% (125/128) patients in the PP treatment population evaluated at 12 months. Reasons for nonevaluation included 1 patient death (not study related) and 2 patients who exited the study early to undergo surgical spine therapies. At 2 years, 84.8% (106/125) of the 12-month PP treatment group returned for follow up. Reasons for nonevaluation at 2 years included 4 patients who withdrew consent and 6 patients who exited the study due to surgical spine procedures. An additional 9 enrolled patients failed to return for evaluation at 24 months.

Due to the overall 17% PP patient fallout by 24 months, we looked at the mean ODI and VAS measures for the PP-treated population at 24 months (n = 106) compared to the overall PP treated population (n = 128) at baseline and 12 months to ensure the PP-treated population evaluated at 24 months was not unintentionally biased. The baseline PP-treated patient reported outcomes were nearly identical for the 2 populations; the mean ODI and VAS in the 24-month PP-treated population were 42.2 and 6.72 cm, respectively, compared to 42.4 and 6.73 cm for the overall PP-treated population. At 12 months, the populations remained comparable; the mean ODI and VAS in the 24-month PP-treated population were 20.8 and 3.84 cm, respectively, compared to 22.6 and 3.96 cm for the overall PP-treated population. Thus, we believe the PP-treated population evaluated at 24 months is reflective of the enrolled PP treatment population.

The incidence of spine-related surgery in the ITT RF ablation-treated patients over the 2-year study period (6.8%, 10/146) in this trial is comparable to other studies reported in the literature for patient populations with degenerative disc disease. Numerous studies have shown that the extent of disc degeneration and disc herniation increases over time as part of the natural aging process. In studies examining asymptomatic patients, de novo herniations or progression of existing disc herniations were observed in 11.4% of patients after 3 years,53 24.4% of patients after 5 years, and 32.3% of patients after 7 years.54 Additionally, in patients with a history of disc degeneration and LBP, the percent values of disc herniation were as high as 78% after 17 years.55 These studies also showed that the rate of deterioration of disc status is increased in patients who have a history of disc degeneration and/or herniation. Thus, the observed incidence of progression of existing disc degeneration and herniation seen in this study of patients with CLBP is not unexpected given the published occurrence rates.

In this study, of the 10 patients that underwent spine surgery over the 2-year study period, 2 had removal of symptomatic disc herniations at nontreated levels. Of the 8 patients that underwent surgery after 1 year, 7 progressed to lumber fusion; however, these were disproportionately performed at a single study site. Thus, the incidence of lumbar fusion post-BVN ablation may be overstated in this trial's results and not reflective of future outcomes.

Prior CLBP studies of other treatment modalities have noted that improvements in pain gradually deteriorated after 6 months.8 These 24-month study results support the longevity of BVN ablation. Radiofrequency ablation of the BVN is due to thermal damage of tissue proteins within the zone of coagulation adjacent to the Intracept probe tip. Coagulation is surrounded by a secondary zone of hyperemia, where there is local release of inflammatory factors, edema, and changes in blood flow.56

These concentric zones result in the characteristic bull's eye appearance of the Intracept lesion seen in clinical MRI images. Histologically, blood vessels within the zone of coagulation are embolized, nerves undergo Wallerian degeneration, and neural tissues disintegrate.57 Unpublished histological studies from a large animal model demonstrate that, by 12 months: (1) hematopoietic marrow in the zone of coagulation is replaced by viable fat; (2) new bone is formed on preexisting trabeculae. There was no evidence of avascular necrosis; and (3) rudimentary blood vessels and nerves develop at the coagulation zone periphery.58 The BVN itself does not appear to regenerate, which may be due to the extent of the thermal injury combined with the fact that the BVN is nonmyelinated, leading to a more comprehensive and permanent nerve destruction.59,60

SUMMARY

Radiofrequency ablation of the BVN is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for the relief of CLBP in patients with Type 1 or 2 MCs. Patients treated with RF ablation of the BVN for CLBP exhibited sustained clinical benefits in ODI and VAS and maintained high responder rates at 2 years after treatment. This therapy reported statistically significant improvements from baseline at all time points through 2 years of follow up. Basivertebral nerve ablation appears to be a safe, durable, minimally invasive treatment for the relief of CLBP in a patient population that typically has few effective treatment options.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures and COI: Rick Sasso, Scott Kitchel, Hyun Bae, Christopher Yeung, Eeric Truummees, Philip Yuan, Peter Vajkoczy, Michael DePalma, and Lee Thibodeau have no disclosures to report. Jeffrey S. Fischgrund reports consultancy for Relievant. Alfred Rhyne reports consultancy for Relievant. Jörg Franke reports consultancy and an honoraria from Relievant. Michael Schaufele reports consultancy for Relievant. David G. Anderson reports consultancy for DePuy Synthes Spine, K2M Spine, and Integrity Spine. Bernhard Meyer reports honoraria, travel support, consultancies, and funded research by Medtronic, DePuy, Umrich, Icotech, Spineart, and Relievant. Research Oversight and Ethics: This research was conducted under the oversight of the Western Institutional Review Board and the investigational site's local institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained for participants in this study. This research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.

REFERENCES

  1. 1 .↵
    1. Deyo RA,
    2. Mirza SK,
    3. Martin BI.
    Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from U.S. national surveys, 2002. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(23):2724–2727.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2 .
    1. Frymoyer JW.
    Back pain and sciatica. N Engl J Med. 1988;318(5):291–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3 .↵
    1. Hoy D,
    2. Bain C,
    3. Williams G, et al.
    A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64(6):2028–2037.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4 .↵
    1. Deyo RA,
    2. Weinstein JN.
    Low back pain. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(5):363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5 .
    1. Chou R,
    2. Qaseem A,
    3. Snow V, et al.
    Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(7):478–491.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6 .↵
    1. Chou R,
    2. Qaseem A,
    3. Owens DK,
    4. Shekelle P.
    Diagnostic imaging for low back pain: advice for high-value health care from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(3):181–189.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7 .↵
    1. Bogduk N,
    2. Tynan W,
    Wilson. The nerve supply to the human lumbar intervertebral discs. J Anat. 1981;132(Pt 1):39–56.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8 .↵
    1. Fritzell P,
    2. Hagg O,
    3. Wessberg P,
    4. Nordwall A.
    2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(23):2521–2532 (discussion 2532–2534).
    OpenUrl
  9. 9 .↵
    1. Mino DE,
    2. Munterich JE,
    3. Castel LD.
    Lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions is associated with significant resource and narcotic use 2 years postoperatively in the commercially insured: a medical and pharmacy claims study. J Spine Surg. 2017;3(2):141–148.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10 .↵
    1. Ong KL,
    2. Auerbach JD,
    3. Lau E,
    4. Schmier J,
    5. Ochoa JA.
    Perioperative outcomes, complications, and costs associated with lumbar spinal fusion in older patients with spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(6):E5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11 .
    1. Hong J,
    2. Reed C,
    3. Novick D,
    4. Happich M.
    Costs associated with treatment of chronic low back pain: an analysis of the UK General Practice Research Database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(1):75–82.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12 .
    1. Gore M,
    2. Sadosky A,
    3. Stacey BR,
    4. Tai KS,
    5. Leslie D.
    The burden of chronic low back pain: clinical comorbidities, treatment patterns, and health care costs in usual care settings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(11):E668–E677.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13 .↵
    1. Brox JI,
    2. Reikeras O,
    3. Nygaard O, et al.
    Lumbar instrumented fusion compared with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic back pain after previous surgery for disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Pain. 2006;122(1–2):145–155.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14 .↵
    1. Fritzell P,
    2. Berg S,
    3. Borgstrom F,
    4. Tullberg T,
    5. Tropp H.
    Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(7):1001–1011.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15 .↵
    1. Ahn J,
    2. Bohl DD,
    3. Tabaraee E,
    4. Aboushaala K,
    5. Elboghdady IM,
    6. Singh K.
    Preoperative narcotic utilization: accuracy of patient self-reporting and its association with postoperative narcotic consumption. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(1):206–214.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16 .
    1. Anderson JT,
    2. Haas AR,
    3. Percy R,
    4. Woods ST,
    5. Ahn UM,
    6. Ahn NU.
    Chronic opioid therapy after lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease in a workers' compensation setting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(22):1775–1784.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17 .
    1. Bohl DD,
    2. Narain AS,
    3. Hijji FY, et al.
    Narcotic consumption following anterior and lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(9):E1190–E1200.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18 .↵
    1. Connolly J, 3rd.,
    2. Javed Z,
    3. Raji MA,
    4. Chan W,
    5. Kuo YF,
    6. Baillargeon J.
    Predictors of long-term opioid use following lumbar fusion surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(18):1405–1411.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19 .↵
    1. DePalma MJ,
    2. Ketchum JM,
    3. Saullo T.
    What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role? Pain Med. 2011;12(2):224–233.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20 .
    1. Schwarzer AC,
    2. Aprill CN,
    3. Derby R,
    4. Fortin J,
    5. Kine G,
    6. Bogduk N.
    The relative contributions of the disc and zygapophyseal joint in chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(7):801–806.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21 .↵
    1. Manchikanti L,
    2. Singh V,
    3. Pampati V, et al.
    Evaluation of the relative contributions of various structures in chronic low back pain. Pain Physician. 2001;4(4):308–316.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22 .↵
    1. Lotz JC,
    2. Fields AJ,
    3. Liebenberg EC.
    The role of the vertebral end plate in low back pain. Global Spine J. 2013;3(3):153–164.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23 .↵
    1. Dudli S,
    2. Fields AJ,
    3. Samartzis D,
    4. Karppinen J,
    5. Lotz JC.
    Pathobiology of Modic changes. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(11):3723–3734.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24 .↵
    1. Dudli S,
    2. Sing DC,
    3. Hu SS, et al.
    ISSLS Prize in Basic Science 2017: intervertebral disc/bone marrow cross-talk with Modic changes. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(5):1362–1373.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25 .↵
    1. Brown MF,
    2. Hukkanen MV,
    3. McCarthy ID, et al.
    Sensory and sympathetic innervation of the vertebral endplate in patients with degenerative disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(1):147–153.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26 .↵
    1. Antonacci MD,
    2. Mody DR,
    3. Heggeness MH.
    Innervation of the human vertebral body: a histologic study. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11(6):526–131.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27 .↵
    1. Bailey JF,
    2. Liebenberg E,
    3. Degmetich S,
    4. Lotz JC.
    Innervation patterns of PGP 9.5-positive nerve fibers within the human lumbar vertebra. J Anat. 2011;218(3):263–270.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28 .
    1. Fras C,
    2. Kravetz P,
    3. Mody DR,
    4. Heggeness MH.
    Substance P-containing nerves within the human vertebral body. An immunohistochemical study of the basivertebral nerve. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;3(1):63–67.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29 .↵
    1. Fagan A,
    2. Moore R,
    Vernon Roberts B, Blumbergs P, Fraser R. ISSLS prize winner: the innervation of the intervertebral disc: a quantitative analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(23):2570–2576.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30 .↵
    1. Ulrich JA,
    2. Liebenberg EC,
    3. Thuillier DU,
    4. Lotz, JC.
    ISSLS prize winner: repeated disc injury causes persistent inflammation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(25):2812–2819.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31 .↵
    1. Carragee EJ,
    2. Lincoln T,
    3. Parmar VS, et al.
    A gold standard evaluation of the “discogenic pain” diagnosis as determined by provocative discography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(18):2115–2123.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32 .↵
    1. Carragee EJ,
    2. Don AS,
    3. Hurwitz EL, et al.
    2009 ISSLS Prize Winner: does discography cause accelerated progression of degeneration changes in the lumbar disc: a ten-year matched cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(21):2338–2345.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33 .↵
    1. Heggeness MH and
    2. Doherty BJ.
    Discography causes end plate deflection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(8):1050–1053.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34 .↵
    1. Modic MT,
    2. Steinberg PM,
    3. Ross JS,
    4. Masaryk TJ,
    5. Carter, JR.
    Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;166(1 Pt 1):193–199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35 .↵
    1. Mok FPS,
    2. Samartzis D,
    3. Karppinen J,
    4. Fong DYT,
    5. Luk KDK,
    6. Cheung KMC.
    Modic changes of the lumbar spine: prevalence, risk factors, and association with disc degeneration and low back pain in a large-scale population-based cohort. Spine J. 2016;16(1):32–41.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36 .↵
    1. Kjaer P,
    2. Korsholm L,
    3. Bendix T,
    4. Sorensen JS,
    Leboeuf-Yde C. Modic changes and their associations with clinical findings. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:1312–1319.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37 .↵
    1. Jensen TS,
    2. Karppinen J,
    3. Sorensen JS,
    4. Niinimäki J,
    Leboeuf-Yde C. Vertebral endplate signal changes (Modic change): a systematic literature review of prevalence and association with non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(11):1407–1422.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38 .↵
    1. Jensen RK,
    Leboeuf-Yde C. Is the presence of Modic changes associated with the outcomes of different treatments? A systematic critical review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:183.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39 .↵
    1. Jensen OK,
    2. Nielsen CV,
    3. Sørensen JS,
    4. Stengaard-Pedersen K.
    Type 1 Modic changes was a significant risk factor for 1-year outcome in sick-listed low back pain patients: a nested cohort study using magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine. Spine J. 2014;14(11):2568–2581.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40 .↵
    1. Lurie JD,
    2. Moses RA,
    3. Tosteson ANA, et al.
    Magnetic resonance imaging predictors of surgical outcome in patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(14):1216–1225.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41 .↵
    1. Fischgrund JS,
    2. Rhyne A,
    3. Franke J, et al.
    Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled multi-center study. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(5):1146–1156.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42 .↵
    1. Ostelo RW,
    2. de Vet HC.
    Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005;19(4):593–607.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43 .↵
    1. Hagg O,
    2. Fritzell P,
    3. Nordwall A,
    Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(1):12–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44 .↵
    1. Copay AG,
    2. Glassman SD,
    3. Subach BR,
    4. Berven S,
    5. Schuler TC,
    6. Carreon LY.
    Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8(6):968–974.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45 .↵
    1. Kuslich SD,
    2. Ulstrom CL,
    3. Michael CJ.
    The tissue origin of low back pain and sciatica: a report of pain response to tissue stimulation during operations on the lumbar spine using local anesthesia. Orthop Clin N Am. 1991;22(2):181–187.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46 .
    1. Adams MA,
    2. Dolan P.
    Could sudden increases in physical activity cause degeneration of intervertebral discs? Lancet. 1997;350(9079):734–735.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47 .
    1. Adams MA,
    2. Freeman BJ,
    3. Morrison HP,
    4. Nelson IW,
    5. Dolan P.
    Mechanical initiation of intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(13):1625–1636.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48 .↵
    1. Carragee EJ,
    2. Alamin TF,
    3. Miller JL,
    4. Carragee JM.
    5. Discographic, MRI
    and psychosocial determinants of low back pain disability and remission: a prospective study in subjects with benign persistent back pain. Spine J. 2005;5(1):24–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49 .
    1. Weishaupt D,
    2. Zanetti M,
    3. Hodler J, et al.
    Painful lumbar disk derangement: relevance of endplate abnormalities at MR imaging. Radiology. 2001;218(2):420–427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50 .
    1. Kuisma M,
    2. Karppinen J,
    3. Niinimaki J, et al.
    Modic changes in endplates of lumbar vertebral bodies: prevalence and association with low back and sciatic pain among middle-aged male workers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(10):1116–1122.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51 .
    1. Rahme R,
    2. Moussa R.
    The modic vertebral endplate and marrow changes: pathologic significance and relation to low back pain and segmental instability of the lumbar spine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(5):838–842.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52 .↵
    1. Schroeder GD,
    2. Markova DZ,
    3. Koerner JD, et al.
    Are Modic changes associated with intervertebral disc cytokine profiles? Spine J. 2017;17(1):129–134.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53 .↵
    1. Jarvik J,
    2. Hollingworth W,
    3. Heagerty PJ,
    4. Haynor DR,
    5. Boyko EJ,
    6. Deyo RA.
    Three-year incidence of low back pain in an initially asymptomatic cohort. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(13):1541–1548.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54 .↵
    1. Borenstein D,
    2. O'Mara JW,
    3. Boden SD, et al.
    The value of magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine to predict low-back pain in asymptomatic subjects, a seven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg. 2001;83-A(9):1306–1310.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. 55 .↵
    1. Waris E,
    2. Eskelin, M,
    3. Hermunen H,
    4. Kiviluoto O,
    5. Paajanen H.
    Disc degeneration in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(6):681–684.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56 .↵
    1. Coert JH.
    Pathophysiology of nerve regeneration and nerve reconstruction in burned patients. Burns. 2010;36(5):593–598.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57 .↵
    1. Fan KW,
    2. Zhu ZX,
    3. Den ZY.
    An experimental model of an electrical injury in the peripheral nerve. Burns. 2005;31(6):731–736.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58 .↵
    1. Lotz JC.
    Basivertebral nerve ablation chronic results pre-clinical study for University of California San Francisco. Unpublished.
  59. 59 .↵
    1. Sherman MS,
    The nerves of bone. J Bone Jt Surg. 1963 Apr;45(3):522–528.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60 .↵
    1. Liuzzi FJ,
    2. Tedeschi B.
    Peripheral nerve regeneration. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1991;2(1):31–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Intraosseous Basivertebral Nerve Ablation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: 2-Year Results From a Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Sham-Controlled Multicenter Study
JEFFREY S. FISCHGRUND, ALFRED RHYNE, JÖRG FRANKE, RICK SASSO, SCOTT KITCHEL, HYUN BAE, CHRISTOPHER YEUNG, EERIC TRUUMEES, MICHAEL SCHAUFELE, PHILIP YUAN, PETER VAJKOCZY, MICHAEL DEPALMA, DAVID G. ANDERSON, LEE THIBODEAU, BERNHARD MEYER
International Journal of Spine Surgery Apr 2019, 13 (2) 110-119; DOI: 10.14444/6015
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords