IDET Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy for the Treatment of Low Back Pain

Page 1 of 29

TITLE: IDET – Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapyfor Treatment of Back PainAUTHOR: Jeffrey A. Tice, MDAssistant Adjunct Professor of MedicineDivision of General Internal MedicineDepartment of MedicineUniversity of CA, San FranciscoPUBLISHER NAME: California Technology Assessment ForumDATE OF PUBLICATION: October 8, 2003PLACE OF PUBLICATION: San Francisco, CA

Page 2 of 29

INTRADISCAL ELECTROTHERMAL THERAPYFOR TREATMENT OF BACK PAIN (IDET)INTRODUCTION

The technology of Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy (IDET) for thetreatment of chronic back pain was reviewed by the Blue Shield of California Medical Policy Committee on Quality and Technology on June9, 1999. The decision at that time was that IDET did not meet technologyassessment criteria. The California Technology Assessment Forum has been asked to conduct another review as the scientific literature hasevolved over the past four years.

BACKGROUND

Back painLow back pain is the most common cause of morbidity and chronic pain inthe US with an incidence approaching 20% (Deyo

et al.

1987). In mostcases, the causes of both acute and chronic back pain are benign. The physiologic basis for low back pain is complex, in part because of itscomplex anatomy. The spine is comprised of bones, joints, ligaments, fattytissue, multiple layers of muscles, and nerves. These structures aresupplied by an intricate arterial and venous system and lie in close proximity to the skin with its sensory receptors. Spinal structures andtissues that possess either unmyelinated nerves or substance P or related peptides are assumed to have the capacity to cause pain.Such structures include the posterior facet joints, bones and periosteum,muscles, tendons, fascia, ligaments, nerve roots, dorsal root ganglia, duramater, and the intervertebral disc (Haldeman 1999).The specific tissue responsible for back pain is identified in less than 20%of cases (Frymoyer 1988). In most cases a trial of conservative treatmentis appropriate. A more aggressive diagnostic evaluation is usually done incases of progressive neurologic deficit, bowel or bladder incontinence, ahistory of cancer, or significant trauma (Swenson 1999).

Page 3 of 29

BACKGROUND

, continuedUp to 40% of chronic low back pain has been reported to originate fromthe intervertebral disc (Schwarzer

et al.

1995). Internal disc disruption has been postulated as a cause of discogenic pain, but there is controversysurrounding its diagnosis and management. It is differentiated from other potentially painful degenerative processes such as degenerative discdisease and segmental instability. There has been controversy in theliterature about the extent of innervation of the disc. It is now clear thatfine nerve endings penetrate the outer one-third of the annulus and maycause pain (Weinstein

et al.

1988; Houpt

et al.

1996). The disc resemblesa jelly-filled donut composed of a series of firm fibrous rings (annulusfibrosis) surrounding a soft core (nucleus pulposus). A number of discinjuries can potentially lead to pain. These include annular tears, disc protrusions with extrusion of the nucleus pulposus, and disc herniation, inwhich some of the nucleus pulposus escapes through the annulus. Theseevents cause pain by stretching or tearing peripheral disc fibers or bygenerating an inflammatory reaction in adjacent spinal tissues (Swenson1999).Low back pain caused by intervertebral disc damage may be insidious or sudden in onset. Pain is usually at the center of the back and may radiateto the buttocks or thighs. It is usually increased by sitting and improved bylying down. Pain usually improves within two weeks, but may require upto twelve weeks for complete resolution. The pain caused by disc tearsdoes not differ significantly from that associated with disc bulge andherniation. Up to 90% of acute episodes of intervertebral disc damageresolve spontaneously with chronic pain developing in about 10% of cases(Swenson 1999).Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important tool for the diagnosisof internal disc disruption. If the MRI is normal, disc disruption can beruled out. MRI findings suggestive of internal disc disruption includeconcentric, radial and transverse tears of the annulus fibrosis. Radial tearsare most frequently associated with pain on discography (Moneta

et al.

1994). Discography, while controversial, is considered to be the mostimportant tool in the diagnosis of internal disc disruption (Holt 1968;Weinstein

et al.

1988). Information from discography should include themorphology of the disc being injected, the disc pressure and volume of fluid accepted by the disc, the subjective pain response, and the painresponse at adjacent disc levels.