What is spondylosis. How does it affect the spine. What are the common symptoms of spondylosis. What treatment options are available for spondylosis. How is spondylosis diagnosed. Can spondylosis be prevented. What is the long-term outlook for people with spondylosis.

What is Spondylosis and How Does it Affect the Spine?

Spondylosis is a broad term used to describe degenerative changes in the spine that occur as a natural part of aging. It’s not a specific diagnosis, but rather an umbrella term that can encompass various conditions affecting the vertebrae, discs, and surrounding tissues.

The spine is made up of vertebrae stacked on top of each other, separated by cushioning discs. As we age, these structures can wear down, leading to:

• Disc degeneration and loss of height
• Formation of bone spurs (osteophytes)
• Thickening of spinal ligaments
• Facet joint osteoarthritis

These changes can occur throughout the spine but are most common in the cervical (neck) and lumbar (lower back) regions. While spondylosis is a normal part of aging, it can sometimes lead to pain and other symptoms if nerves or the spinal cord become compressed.

Common Symptoms and Manifestations of Spondylosis

Many people with spondylosis may not experience any symptoms. However, when symptoms do occur, they can vary depending on the location and severity of the degeneration. Common manifestations include:

• Neck or back pain
• Stiffness in the affected area
• Muscle weakness
• Numbness or tingling in the arms or legs
• Headaches (particularly with cervical spondylosis)
• Difficulty walking or balance problems

Is spondylosis always painful? No, not necessarily. Many individuals with spondylosis on imaging studies may be asymptomatic. Pain and other symptoms typically arise when the degenerative changes lead to nerve compression or inflammation.

Diagnosing Spondylosis: From Symptoms to Imaging

Diagnosing spondylosis involves a combination of clinical evaluation and imaging studies. The process typically includes:

1. Medical history review
2. Physical examination
3. Imaging tests such as X-rays, MRI, or CT scans
4. Neurological tests if nerve involvement is suspected

X-rays can show bone spurs, narrowing of disc spaces, and other bony changes associated with spondylosis. MRI scans provide more detailed images of soft tissues, including the spinal cord and nerve roots, which can help identify any compression or inflammation.

How do doctors differentiate spondylosis from other spinal conditions? While spondylosis refers to general degeneration, doctors will often use more specific terms once they’ve identified the exact cause of a patient’s symptoms. For example, they might diagnose lumbar spinal stenosis or cervical degenerative disc disease.

Conservative Treatment Approaches for Spondylosis

Most cases of spondylosis can be managed effectively with conservative treatments. These may include:

• Physical therapy to improve strength and flexibility
• Pain medications (over-the-counter or prescription)
• Heat and cold therapy
• Lifestyle modifications (e.g., ergonomic adjustments, weight loss)
• Gentle exercises like yoga or swimming
• Chiropractic care or massage therapy

Are there specific exercises that can help with spondylosis? Yes, exercises that focus on strengthening the core and improving spinal flexibility can be beneficial. However, it’s important to work with a physical therapist or healthcare provider to develop a safe and effective exercise program tailored to your specific condition.

Advanced Treatment Options for Severe Spondylosis

In cases where conservative treatments don’t provide adequate relief, more advanced interventions may be considered:

• Epidural steroid injections to reduce inflammation
• Radiofrequency ablation for facet joint pain
• Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
• Surgical interventions (as a last resort)

Surgical options may include decompression procedures to relieve nerve pressure or spinal fusion to stabilize the affected vertebrae. However, surgery is typically only recommended when there’s significant nerve compression or when conservative treatments have failed to provide relief.

When is surgery necessary for spondylosis?

Surgery may be considered in cases where:

• There’s severe or progressive neurological deficit
• Conservative treatments have failed to provide relief after several months
• The patient’s quality of life is significantly impacted
• There’s evidence of spinal instability

The decision to undergo surgery should be made carefully, weighing the potential benefits against the risks and considering the individual patient’s overall health and lifestyle factors.

Living with Spondylosis: Lifestyle Modifications and Self-Care Strategies

While spondylosis is a chronic condition, there are many ways to manage symptoms and maintain a good quality of life:

• Maintain good posture to reduce stress on the spine
• Use ergonomic furniture and tools
• Practice stress-reduction techniques like meditation or deep breathing
• Stay physically active with low-impact exercises
• Maintain a healthy weight to reduce pressure on the spine
• Use proper body mechanics when lifting or performing physical tasks

Can diet play a role in managing spondylosis? While there’s no specific diet proven to cure spondylosis, maintaining a healthy, balanced diet can help manage inflammation and maintain a healthy weight, which can reduce stress on the spine.

Preventing Spondylosis and Slowing its Progression

While some degree of spinal degeneration is a normal part of aging, there are steps you can take to maintain spine health and potentially slow the progression of spondylosis:

• Regular exercise to keep muscles strong and flexible
• Maintaining good posture
• Avoiding smoking, which can accelerate disc degeneration
• Staying hydrated to keep spinal discs healthy
• Using proper lifting techniques to avoid spine injuries
• Managing stress, which can contribute to muscle tension

Is it possible to reverse spondylosis? While it’s not possible to completely reverse the degenerative changes associated with spondylosis, many of its symptoms can be effectively managed. Additionally, adopting healthy lifestyle habits can help slow its progression and prevent further damage.

Understanding the Long-Term Outlook for Spondylosis Patients

The prognosis for individuals with spondylosis can vary widely depending on the severity of the condition, the effectiveness of treatment, and the patient’s overall health. Many people with spondylosis are able to manage their symptoms effectively and maintain a good quality of life with appropriate treatment and self-care strategies.

Does spondylosis always get worse over time? While spondylosis is a progressive condition, the rate of progression can vary significantly between individuals. Some people may experience a gradual worsening of symptoms over many years, while others may have stable symptoms for long periods.

Factors that can influence the long-term outlook include:

• Age and overall health
• Severity of spinal degeneration
• Presence of other health conditions
• Adherence to treatment plans and lifestyle recommendations
• Genetic factors

Regular follow-ups with healthcare providers are important to monitor the progression of spondylosis and adjust treatment plans as needed. With proper management, many individuals with spondylosis can maintain an active and fulfilling lifestyle.

The Role of Emerging Therapies in Spondylosis Treatment

As medical research advances, new treatment options for spondylosis continue to emerge. Some promising areas of research include:

• Regenerative medicine techniques, such as stem cell therapy
• Advanced biologics to promote tissue healing
• Minimally invasive surgical techniques
• Improved pain management strategies
• Wearable technology for posture correction and pain management

While many of these therapies are still in the experimental stages, they offer hope for improved outcomes in the future. Patients with spondylosis should discuss the latest treatment options with their healthcare providers to stay informed about potential new therapies that may benefit them.

Are there any clinical trials for spondylosis treatments?

Yes, there are often ongoing clinical trials investigating new treatments for spondylosis and related conditions. Patients interested in participating in clinical trials should discuss this option with their healthcare provider and can search for relevant studies on websites like ClinicalTrials.gov.

It’s important to note that while emerging therapies offer exciting possibilities, they should be approached with caution. Patients should always consult with their healthcare providers before considering experimental treatments to understand the potential risks and benefits.

Spondylosis in Different Age Groups: From Young Adults to Seniors

While spondylosis is often associated with aging, it can affect individuals of all ages. The presentation and management of spondylosis can vary depending on the age group:

Young Adults (20-40 years)

In younger individuals, spondylosis is less common but can occur due to factors such as:

• Genetic predisposition
• Previous spine injuries
• Occupations involving heavy physical labor
• Sports-related wear and tear

Treatment for younger adults often focuses on conservative measures and lifestyle modifications to prevent further degeneration.

Middle-Aged Adults (40-60 years)

This age group often begins to experience the effects of age-related spinal degeneration. Management typically involves:

• Physical therapy and exercise programs
• Pain management strategies
• Ergonomic adjustments at work and home
• Lifestyle modifications to support spine health

Seniors (60+ years)

Spondylosis is most common in this age group. Treatment approaches consider:

• Overall health and comorbidities
• Balance between pain relief and maintaining mobility
• Fall prevention strategies
• Potential medication interactions

How does the approach to treating spondylosis differ across age groups? While the fundamental principles of spondylosis management remain similar, treatment plans are tailored to each age group’s specific needs and challenges. For example, younger patients may focus more on preventive strategies and maintaining an active lifestyle, while older adults may prioritize pain management and maintaining independence in daily activities.

Regardless of age, early diagnosis and intervention can help manage symptoms more effectively and potentially slow the progression of spinal degeneration. Regular check-ups and open communication with healthcare providers are crucial for optimal management of spondylosis across all age groups.

Spondylosis: What It Actually Means

Spondylosis is a broad term that simply refers to some type of degeneration in the spine.

Spondylosis is an umbrella term used to describe pain from degenerative conditions of the spine. Watch: Spondylosis Video

Most often, the term spondylosis is used to describe osteoarthritis of the spine, but it is also commonly used to describe any manner of spinal degeneration.

advertisement

Spondylosis Is a Descriptive Term

As with many other terms to describe spinal problems, spondylosis is more of a descriptive term than it is a clinical diagnosis. Literally it can be translated to mean that one has both pain and spine degeneration, regardless of what is causing the pain or where the degeneration is occurring.

Watch: Video: What Is a Degenerative Disc and the Degenerative Cascade?

For example:

• The patient may have pain from facet joint osteoarthritis, causing pain during times of high activity or after extended inactivity
• There could be spinal stenosis, an abnormal narrowing of the spinal canal, which is creating leg pain when the patient walks
• The pain could be caused by degenerative disc disease, in which a degenerated disc that becomes dehydrated and loses some of its function. The degenerated disc can cause low back pain or neck pain, and possibly leg pain or arm pain.

These examples are only a few of the many possible contributors to a patient’s pain.

See When Back Pain May Be a Medical Emergency

In This Article:

• Spondylosis: What It Actually Means

• Answers to Common Spondylosis Questions

• Spondylosis Video

After arriving at a confirmed clinical diagnosis for the cause of a patient’s pain (rather than just the finding that there is spondylosis, which may or may not be causing the pain), physicians then usually use more specific terms for the diagnosis (such as osteoarthritis, lumbar degenerative disc disease or cervical degenerative disc disease, or lumbar spinal stenosis or cervical spinal stenosis) because those terms more effectively describe what is causing the pain.

Dr. David DeWitt is an orthopedic surgeon practicing at the NeuroSpine Center of Wisconsin, where he specializes in spine surgery. He has more than 15 years of experience evaluating and treating spine diseases and trauma.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Twitter
• Subscribe to our newsletter

• Email this article

advertisement

Editor’s Top Picks

• Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis

• Facet Joint Osteoarthritis

• Living with Degenerative Disc Disease

• Spondylosis Video

• Lumbar Osteoarthritis Video

• Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease Video

Lumbar spondylosis: clinical presentation and treatment approaches

1. Frymoyer JW. Back pain and sciatica. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:291–300. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. van Geen J, Edelaar M, Janssen M, et al. The long-term effect of multidisciplinary back training: a systematic review. Spine. 2007;32(2):249–55. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000251745.00674.08. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low pain. Lancet. 1999;354:581–5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01312-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Dillane J, Fry J, Kalton G. Acute back syndrome—a study from general practice. Br Med J. 1966;2:82–4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5505.82. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Andersson HI, Ejlertsson G, Leden I, et al. Chronic pain in a geographically defined general population: studies of differences in age, gender, social class and pain localization. Clin J Pain. 1993;9:174–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Andersson GB. The epidemiology of spinal disorders. In: Frymoyer JW, editor. The adult spine: principles and practice. 2. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. [Google Scholar]

7. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands. Pain. 1995;62:233–40. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)00272-G. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Deyo R, Cherkin D, Conrad D. Cost, controversy, crisis: low back pain and the health of the public. Annu Rev Publ Health. 1991;12:141–56. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.12.050191.001041. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Bogduk N. The innervation of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1983;8:286–93. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198304000-00009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Williams ME, Hadler NM. The illness as the focus of geriatric medicine. N Engl J Med. 1983;308:1357–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, et al. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects: a prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg. 1990;72:403–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Wiesel SW, Tsourmas N, Feffer HL, et al. A study of computer-assisted tomography. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an asymptomatic group of patients. Spine. 1984;9:549. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198409000-00003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Pye SR, Reid DM, Lunt M, et al. Lumbar disc degeneration: association between osteophytes, end-plate sclerosis and disc space narrowing. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(3):330–3. doi: 10.1136/ard.2006.052522. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. van der Kraan PM, van den Berg WB. Osteophytes: relevance and biology. Osteoarthritis cartilage. 2007;15(3):237–44. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2006.11.006. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Rothschild B. Lumbar spondylosis. In: Emedicine publication. 2008. Available via WebMD. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/249036-overview.

16. Fardon DF, Milette PC. Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Spine. 2001;26(5):E93–113. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00006. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Schneck CD. The anatomy of lumbar spondylosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;193:20–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Gibson JNA, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine. 2005;20:2312–20. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000182315.88558.9c. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Symmons DPM, van Hemert AM, Vandenbrouke JP, et al. A longitudinal study of back pain and radiological changes in the lumbar spines of middle aged women: radiographic findings. Ann Rheum Dis. 1991;50:162–6. doi: 10.1136/ard.50.3.162. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. O’Neill TW, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA, et al. The distribution, determinants, and clinical correlates of vertebral osteophytosis: a population based survey. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:842–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(2):69–73. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199407143310201. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Frymoyer JW, Newberg A, Pope MH, et al. Spine radiographs in patients with low-back pain. An epidemiological study in men. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(7):1048–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Lawrence JS. Disc degeneration. Its frequency and relationship to symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1969;28:121–38. doi: 10.1136/ard.28.2.121. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Kirkaldy-Willis W, Bernard T. Managing low back pain. New York: Churchill livingstone; 1983. [Google Scholar]

25. Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S, et al. Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2007;10(1):7–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge JH, Yong-Hing K, et al. Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine. 1978;3:319–28. doi: 10.1097/00007632-197812000-00004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Menkes CJ, Lane NE. Are osteophytes good or bad? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12(Suppl A):S53–4. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2003.09.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Peng B, Hou S, Shi Q, et al. Experimental study on mechanism of vertebral osteophyte formation. Chin J Traumatol. 2000;3(4):202–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Blom AB, van Lent PL, Holfhuysen AE, et al. Synovial lining macrophages mediate osteophyte formation during experimental osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12(8):627–35. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2004.03.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Snyder DL, Doggett D, Turkelson C. Treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70(3):517–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Sheldon JT, Sersland T, Leborgne J. Computed tomography of the lower lumbar vertebral column. Radiology. 1977;124:113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Williams AL, Haughton VM, Daniels DL, Thornton RS. CT recognition of lateral lumbar disc herniation. Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139(1):345–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Nojiri K, Ishikawa M, Toyama Y, Nishikawa Y. Extraforaminal entrapment of the fifth lumbar spinal nerve by osteophytes of the lumbosacral spine: anatomic study and a report of four cases. Spine. 2002;27(6):E169–73. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200203150-00020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. MacNab I. Backache. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1977. [Google Scholar]

35. Hasegawa T, An HS, Haughton VM, et al. Lumbar foraminal stenosis: critical heights of the intervertebral discs and foramina. A cryomicrotome study in cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(1):32–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Buckwalter JA, Saltzman C, Brown T. The impact of osteoarthritis: implications for research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:S6–15. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000143938.30681.9d. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Heine J, Ûber die Arthritis deformans. Virchows Arch Pathol Anat. 1926;260:521–663. doi: 10.1007/BF01889359. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Miller JA, Schmatz C, Schultz AB. Lumbar disc degeneration: correlation with age, sex, and spine level in 600 autopsy specimens. Spine. 1988;13:173–8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198802000-00008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Boos N, Weissbach S, Rohrbach H, et al. Classification of age-related changes in lumbar intervertebral discs: 2002 Volvo Award in basic science. Spine. 2002;27:2631–44. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200212010-00002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Kramer PA. Prevalence and distribution of spinal osteoarthritis in women. Spine. 2006;31(24):2843–8. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000245854.53001.4e. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Videman T, Battié MC. Spine update: the influence of occupation on lumbar degeneration. Spine. 1999;24:1164–8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199906010-00020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Hassett G, Hart DJ, Manek NJ, et al. Risk factors for progression of lumbar spine disc degeneration: the Chingford Study. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(11):3112–7. doi: 10.1002/art.11321. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Spector TD, MacGregor AJ. Risk factors for osteoarthritis: genetics. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12(Suppl A):S39–44. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2003.09.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Videman T, Battié MC, Ripatti S, et al. Determinants of the progression in lumbar degeneration: a 5-year follow-up study of adult male monozygotic twins. Spine. 2006;31(6):671–8. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000202558.86309.ea. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Battié MC, Videman T, Gibbons L, et al. Determinants of lumbar disc degeneration: a study relating lifetime exposures and MRI findings in identical twins. Spine. 1995;20:2601–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Videman T, Leppavuori J, Kaprio J, et al. Intragenic polymorphisms of the vitamin D receptor gene associated with intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine. 1998;23:2477–85. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199812010-00002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Humzah MD, Soames RW. Human intervertebral disc: structure and function [Review] Anat Rec. 1988;220:337–56. doi: 10.1002/ar.1092200402. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Lamer TJ. Lumbar spine pain originating from vertebral osteophytes. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1999;24(4):347–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Malmivaara AV, et al. Meta-analysis: exercise therapy for nonspecific low back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:765–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Tomlinson G. Systematic review: strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:776–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Deyo RA, Walsh NE, Martin DC, et al. A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1627–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Van Tulder MW, Koes B, Malmivaara Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(1):S64–81. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1048-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. Milne S, Welch V, Brosseau L. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low back pain. Oxford: The Cochrane Library; 2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Heymans MW, van Tulder MW, Esmail R, et al. Back schools for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine. 2005;30(19):2153–63. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000182227.33627.15. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. Van der Heijden GJMG, Beurskens AJHM, Dirx MJM, et al. Efficacy of lumbar traction: a randomized clinical trial. Physiotherapy. 1995;81:29–35. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9406(05)67032-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. Borman P, Keskin D, Bodur H. The efficacy of lumbar traction in the management of patients with low back pain. Rheumatol Int. 2003;23:82–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Werners R, Pynsent PB, Bulstrode CJK. Randomized trial comparing interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage in the management of low back pain in a primary care setting. Spine. 1999;24:1579–84. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199908010-00012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:871–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Bromfort G, Haas M, Evans RL, et al. Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Spine. 2004;4(3):335–56. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2003.06.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Oliphant D. Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004;27:197–210. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2003.12.023. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Furlan AD, Brosseau L, Imamura M, et al. Massage for low-back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine. 2002;27(17):1896–910. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200209010-00017. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Schnitzer TJ, Ferraro A, Hunsche E, et al. A comprehensive review of clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of drugs for the treatment of low back pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004;28:72–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.10.015. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Hickey RF. Chronic low back pain: a comparison of diflunisal with paracetamol. N Z Med J. 1982;95(707):312–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Videman T, Osterman K. Double-blind parallel study of piroxicam versus indomethacin in the treatment of low back pain. Ann Clin Res. 1984;16:156–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Berry H, Bloom B, Hamilton EB, et al. Naproxen sodium, diflunisal, and placebo in the treatment of chronic back pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 1982;41(2):129–32. doi: 10.1136/ard.41.2.129. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. DeMoor M, Ooghe R. Clinical trial of oxametacin in low back pain and cervicobrachialgia. Ars Medici Revue Internationale De Therapie Pratique. 1982;37:1509–15. [Google Scholar]

67. Martell BA, O’Connor PG, Kerns RD, et al. Systematic review: opioid treatment for chronic back pain: prevalence, efficacy, and association with addition. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(2):116–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Fillingim RB, Doleys DM, Edwards RR, et al. Clinical characteristics of chronic back pain as a function of gender and oral opioid use. Spine. 2003;28:143–50. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200301150-00010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. Turk DC, Okifuji A. What factors affect physicians’ decisions to prescribe opioids for chronic noncancer pain patients? Clin J Pain. 1997;13:330–6. doi: 10.1097/00002508-199712000-00011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

70. Salerno SM, Browning R, Jackson JL. The effect of antidepressant treatment in chronic back pain: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:19–24. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.1.19. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

71. Staiger O, Barak G, Sullivan MD, Deyo RA. Systematic review of antidepressants in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Spine. 2003;28:2540–5. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000092372.73527.BA. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

72. Salzmann E, Pforringer W, Paal G, et al. Treatment of chronic low-back syndrome with tetrazepam in a placebo controlled double-blind trial. J Drug Dev. 1992;4:219–28. [Google Scholar]

73. Abdi S, Datta S, Trescot AM, et al. Epidural steroids in the management of chronic spinal pain: a systematic review. Pain Physician. 2007;10:185–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

74. Koes BW, Scholten RJ, Mens JM, et al. Efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Pain. 1995;63(3):279–88. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00124-7. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

75. Stitz MY, Sommer HM. Accuracy of blind versus fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injection. Spine. 1999;24(13):1371–6. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199907010-00016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

76. Arden NK, Price C, Reading I, et al. A multicentre randomized controlled trial of epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica: the WEST study. Rheumatology. 2005;44:1399–406. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kei028. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

77. Carette S, Leclaire R, Marcoux S, et al. Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1634–40. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199706053362303. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

78. Vad VB, Bhat AL, Lutz GE, et al. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections in lumbosacral radiculopathy: a prospective randomized study. Spine. 2002;27:11–6. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200201010-00005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

79. Lutz GE, Vad VB, Wisneski RJ. Fluoroscopic transforaminal lumbar epidural steroids: an outcome study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:1362–6. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90228-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

80. Botwin KP, Gruber RD, Bouchlas CG, et al. Fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in degenerative lumbar stenosis: an outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81:898–905. doi: 10.1097/00002060-200212000-00003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

81. Riew KD, Park JB, Cho YS, et al. Nerve root blocks in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain: a minimum 5-year follow up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1722–5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00278. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

82. Riew KD, Yin Y, Gilula L, Bridwell, et al. The effect of nerve-root injections on the need for operative treatment of lumbar radicular pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1589–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

83. Yang SC, Fu TS, Lai PL, et al. Transforaminal epidural steroid injection for discectomy candidates: an outcome study with a minimum of 2 year follow-up. Chang Gung Med J. 2006;29:93–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

84. Boswell MV, Singh V, Staats PS, et al. Accuracy of precision diagnostic blocks in the diagnosis of chronic spinal pain of facet or zygapophysial joint origin: a systematic review. Pain Physician. 2003;6:449–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

85. Sehgal N, Dunbar EE, Shah RV, et al. Systematic review of diagnostic utility of facet (zygapophysial) joint injections in chronic spinal pain: an update. Pain Physician. 2007;10(1):213–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

86. Boswell MV, Colson JD, Sehgal N, et al. A systematic review of therapeutic facet joint interventions in chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2007;10:229–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

87. Fuchs S, Erbe T, Fischer HL, et al. Intraarticular hyaluronic acid versus glucocorticoid injections for nonradicular pain in the lumbar spine. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16:1493–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

88. Carette S, Marcoux S, Truchon R, et al. A controlled trial of corticosteroid injections into facet joints for chronic low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1002–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

89. Manchikanti L, Pampati VS, Bakhit C, et al. Effectiveness of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Pain Physician. 2001;4:101–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

90. Pereira PL, Gunaydin I, Trubenbach J, et al. Interventional MR imaging for injection of sacroiliac joints in patients with sacroiliitis. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:265–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

91. Maugars Y, Mathis C, Berthelot JM, et al. Assessment of the efficacy of sacroiliac corticosteroid injections in spondylarthropathies: a double-blind study. Br J Rheumatol. 1996;35(8):767–70. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/35.8.767. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

92. Hansen HC, McKenzie-Brown AM, Cohen SP, et al. Sacroiliac joint interventions: a systematic review pain physician. 2007;10(1):165–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

93. Wichman HJ. Discography: over 50 years of controversy. WMJ. 2007;106(1):27–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

94. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC, et al. Seven to ten year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1996;21:92. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199601010-00022. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

95. Ibrahim T, Tleyjeh IM, Gabbar O. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. In: International orthopedics. Available via SpringerLink. 2006. http://www.springerlink.com/content/b9634hh822764233/. Accessed 21 Nov 2006.

404 Page not found

We use cookies to improve the MSTU website and make it easier to use. More information on the use of cookies can be found here.
By continuing to use the site, you confirm that you have been informed about the use of cookies by the FGBOU VO “MSTU” site and agree to our rules for processing personal data.

Size:

AAA

Images

On
Off

Regular version of the site

Unfortunately, the requested page was not found.

But you can use the search or the sitemap below

Potential for the use of hydroxyapatite-based bone substitute materials in spinal surgery | Mukhametov

1. Fink B., Schlumberger M. Antibiotic therapy alone does not have a high success rate in cases of unexpected positive cultures in intraoperative samples from hip and knee prosthesis revision. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):786. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03799-w

2. Maji K., Dasgupta S. Hydroxyapatite-chitosan and gelatin based scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Transactions of the Indian Ceramic Society. 2014;73:110–4. DOI: 10.1080/0371750X.2014.922424

3. Sharma C., Dinda A.K., Potdar P.D., Chou C.F., Mishra N.C. Fabrication and characterization of novel nano-biocomposite scaffold of chitosan-gelatin-alginate-hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016;64:416–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.03.060

4. Maji K., Dasgupta S. Characterization and in vitro evaluation of gelatin-chitosan scaffold reinforced with bioceramic nanoparticles for bone tissue engineering. J Mat Res. 2019;34(16):2807–18. DOI: 10.1557/jmr.2019.170

5. Hinsenkamp M., Muylle L., Eastlund T., Fehily D., Noel L., Strong D.M. Adverse reactions and events related to musculoskeletal allografts: reviewed by the World Health Organization Project NOTIFY. Int Orthop. 2012;36(3):633–41. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-011-1391-7

6. Coraça-Huber D.C., Nogler M., Kühn K.D. Potential of allogeneic bone grafts as antibiotic carriers: Effect of different preparation processes on efficacy. Orthopade. 2018;47(1):30–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-017-3507-2

7. Ebrahimi M., Botelho M., Lu W. Synthesis and characterization of biomimetic bioceramic nanoparticles with optimized physicochemical properties for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mat Res. 2019;107:1654–66. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.36681

8. Mansor A., ​​Ariffin A.F., Yusof N., Mohd S., Ramalingam S., Md Saad A.P., et al. Effects of processing and gamma radiation on mechanical properties and organic composition of frozen, freeze-dried and demineralised human cortical bone allograft. Cell Tissue Bank. 2022 May 25. DOI: 10.1007/s10561-022-10013-9

9. Elhendawi H., Felfel R.M., Bothaina M., Abd El-Hady, Reicha F.M. Effect of synthesis temperature on the crystallization and growth of in situ prepared nanohydroxyapatite in chitosan matrix. ISRN Biomaterials. 2014;5:1–8. DOI: 10.1155/2014/897468

10. Buchholz H.W., Engelbrecht H. Depot effects of various antibiotics mixed with Palacos resins. Chirug. 1970;41(11):511–5. PMID: 5487941

11. Lindsey R.W., Probe R., Miclau T., Alexander J.W., Perren S.M. The effects of antibiotic-impregnated autogeneic cancellous bone grafton bone healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;291:303–12. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199306000-00035

12. Goldberg V.M. Selection of bone grafts for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;381:68–76. 13. Barckman J., Baas J., Sorensen M., Lange J., Bechtold J.E., Soballe K. Does tobramycin impregnation of allograft bone affect implant fixation?—an experimental study in 12 dogs. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2014;102(1):173–80. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.32993

14. Prokes L., Snejdrova E., Soukup T., Malakova J., Frolov V., Loskot J., et al. Allogeneic bone impregnated with biodegradable depot delivery systems for the local treatment of joint replacement infections: an in vitro study. Molecules. 2022;27(19):6487. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196487

15. Ishiguro S., Asanuma K., Tamaki T., Oinuma K., Sudo A. A case of cementless impaction bone graft in a revision total hip arthroplasty requiring calcar reconstruction. Case Rep Orthop. 2021;2021:8811593. DOI: 10.1155/2021/8811593

16. Chou P.H., Lin H.H., Yao Y.C., Chang M.C., Liu C.L., Wang S.T. Does local vancomycin powder impregnated with autogenous bone graft and bone substitute decrease the risk of deep surgical site infection in degenerative lumbar spine fusion surgery?-An ambispective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):853. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05802-y

17. Xu H., Yang J., Xie J., Huang Z., Huang Q., Cao G., et al. Efficacy and safety of intrawound vancomycin in primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(11):778–88. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.911.BJR-2020-0190.R2

18. Erivan R., Lopez-Chicon P., Fariñas O., Perez Prieto D., Grau S., Boisgard S., et al. Which type of bone releases the most vancomycin? Comparison of spongious bone, cortical powder and cortico-spongious bone. Cell Tissue Bank. 2020;21(1):131–7. DOI: 10.1007/s10561-019-09806-2

19. Bullens P.H., Minderhoud N.M., de Waal Malefijt M.C., Veth R.P., Buma P., Schreuder H.W. Survival of massive allografts in segmental oncological bone defects reconstructions. Int Orthop. 2009;33(3):757–60. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-008-0700-2

20. Zuh S.G., Zazgyva A., Gergely I., Pop T.S. Acetabuloplasty with bone grafting in uncemented hip replacement for protrusion. Int Orthop. 2015;39(9):1757–63. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2804-9

21. Wilson M.J., Hook S., Whitehouse S.L., Timperley A.J., Gie G.A. Femoral impaction bone grafting in revision hip arthroplasty: 705 cases from the originating centre. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(12):1611–9. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B12.37414

22. Frommelt L. Indication für die zugabe von antibiotika. In: Jerosch J., Katthagen B.D., Pruß A. (Hrsg) Knochentransplantation. 2012;S151–4.

23. Kühn K.D., Höntzsch D. Augmentation with PMMA cement. Unfallchirg. 2015;118(9):737–48. DOI: 10.1007/s00113-015-0059-y

24. Wekwejt M., Michalska-Sionkowska M., Bartmański M., Nadolska M., Łukowicz K., Pałubicka A., et al. Influence of several biodegradable components added to pure and nanosilver-doped PMMA bone cements on its biological and mechanical properties. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2020;117:111286. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111286

25. Götte S. Osteologie – 100 Jahre. Orthopade. 2001;30:805–11.

26. Zhao R., Yang R., Cooper P.R., Khurshid Z., Shavandi A., Ratnayake J. Bone grafts and substitutes in dentistry: a review of current trends and developments. Molecules. 2021;26(10):3007. DOI: 10.3390/molecules26103007

Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(4):506–19. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13014

28. Rueger J.M. Bone substitutes. State of the art and: what lies ahead? Unfallchirg. 1996;99(3):228–36. PMID: 8685730

29. Soldner E., Herr G. Knochen, Knochentransplantate und Knochenersatzmaterialien. Trauma Berufskr. 2001;3:256–69. DOI: 10.1007/s10039-001-0503-9

30. Ferguson J., Diefenbach M., McNally M. Ceramic biocomposites as biodegradable antibiotic carriers in treatment of bone infection. J Bone Jt Infect. 2017;2(1):38–49. DOI: 10.7150/jbji.17234

31. Hettwer W. Synthetischer Knochenersatz. Orthopade. 2017;46:688–700. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-017-3447-x

32. Roberts T.T., Rosenbaum A.J. Bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics: the bridge between basic science and clinical advancements in fracture healing. Organogenesis. 2012;8(4):114–24. DOI: 10.4161/org.23306

33. Ochsner P.E., Borens O., Bodler P.M., Broger I., Eich G., Maurer T., et al. Infection des Bewegungsapparates. Grandvaux: Eigenverlag swiss orthopaedics; 2014.

34. Khan S.N., Tomin E., Lane J.M. Clinical applications of bone graft substitutes. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31(3):389–98. DOI: 10.1016/s0030-5898(05)70158-9

35. Allison D.C., Lindberg A.W., Samimi B., Mirzayan R., Menendez L.R. A comparison of mineral bone graft substitutes for bone defects. US Oncol Hematol. 2011;7(1):38–49. DOI: 10.17925/OHR.2011.07.1.38

In: Peters K., König D. (Hrsg) Fortbildung Osteologie. Berlin: Springer; 2010. Deutsch.

37. van Vugt T.A., Geurts J.A.P., Arts J.J., Lindforts N.C. Biomaterials in the treatment of orthopedic infections. In: Arts J.J., Geurts J.A.P. (eds) Management of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Swaston: Woodhead Publ.; 2016.

38. Boot W., Vogely H.C. Prophylaxis for implant related infections: current state of the art. In: Kühn (ed) Management of periprosthetic joint infection. Heidelberg: Springer; 2018.

39. Enax J., Janus A.M., Raabe D., Epple M., Fabritius H.O. Ultrastructu – ral organization and micromechanical properties of shark tooth enameloid. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:3959–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.04.028

40. Schnürer S.M., Gopp U., Kühn K.D., Breusch S.J. Knochenersatzwerkstoffe. Orthopade. 2003;32:2–10. Deutsch. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-002-0407-9

41. Zhang E., Zhang W. , Lv T., Li J., Dai J., Zhang F., et al. Insulating and robust ceramic nanorod aerogels with high temperature resistance over 1400 C. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2021;13(17):20548–58. DOI: 10.1021/acsami.1c02501

42. Barbeck M., Jung O., Smeets R., Gosau M., Schnettler R., Rider P., et al. Implantation of an injectable bone substitute material enables integration following the principles of guided bone regeneration. in vivo. 2020;34(2):557–68. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11808

43. Chen J., Ashames A., Buabeid M.A., Fahelelbom K.M., Ijaz M., Murtaza G. Nanocomposites drug delivery systems for the healing of bone fractures. Int J Pharm. 2020;585:119477. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119477

44. Fernandez de Grado G., Keller L., Idoux-Gillet Y., Wagner Q., Musset A.M., Benkirane-Jessel N., et al. Bone substitutes: a review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management. J Tissue Eng. 2018;9:2041731418776819. DOI: 10.1177/2041731418776819

45. He Q., Chen H., Huang L., Dong J., Guo D., Mao M., et al. Porous surface modified bioactive bone cement for enhanced bone bonding. PLoS One 2012;7(8):e42525. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042525

46. Chen C.-C., Wang C.-W., Hsueh N.-S., Ding S.-J. Improvement of in vitro physicochemical properties and osteogenic activity of calcium sulfate cement for bone repair by dicalcium silicate. J Alloys Compd. 2014;585:25–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2013.09.138

47. Shirtliff M.E., Mader J.T., Camper A.K. Molecular interaction in biofilms. Chem Biol. 2002;9(8):859–71.

48. Korkusuz F., Uchida A., Shinto Y., Araki N., Inoue K., Ono K. Experimental implant-related osteomyelitis treated by antibioticcalcium hydroxyapatite ceramic composites. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(1):111–4. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.75B1.8380599

49. Rauschmann M.A., Wichelhaus T.A., Stirnal V., Dingeldein E., Zichner L., Schnettler R., et al. Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite and calcium sulphate as biodegradable composite carrier material for local delivery of antibiotics in bone infections. biomaterials. 2005;26(15):2677–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.06.045

50. Romano C.L., Logoluso N., Meani E., Romano D., De Vecchi E., Vassena C., et al. A comparative study of the use of bioactive glass S53P4 and antibiotic-loaded calcium-based bone substitutes in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. Bone Joint J. 2014;96(6):845–50. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B6.33014

51. Fosca M., Rau J.V., Uskoković V. Factors influencing the drug release from calcium phosphate cements. Bioact Mater. 2021;7:341–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.05.032

52. Usai P., Campanella V., Sotgiu G., Spano G., Pinna R., Eramo S., et al. Effectiveness of calcium phosphate desensitising agents in dental hypersensitivity over 24 weeks of clinical evaluation. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2019;9(12):1748. DOI: 10.3390/nano9121748

53. Kurien T., Pearson R.G., Scammell B.E. Bone graft substitutes current lyavailable inorthopaedic practice the evidence for their use. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(5):583–97.