Study Design: Prospective study with a 2-year follow-up.

Background: Intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) was developed as an intermediate stage between conservative measures (analgesia, physiotherapy and injections) and radical surgery (fusion and disc replacement) for the treatment of internal disc disruption (IDD). Recent reports have questioned the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

Objective: To assess the long-term outcome of patients with discogenic low back pain (≥ 6 months duration) treated with IDET who had previously failed to improve with nonoperative treatment

Methods: Forty patients with IDD determined by pre-operative provocative discography and MRI were treated with IDET. VAS pain scores, SF-36 scores, analgesic usage and sitting tolerance (mins) were collected pre-treatment and at 12 and 24 months. Subsequent treatments were recorded. The differences in the outcome scores were tested by Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

Results: Average age was 46 years (range 25–62 years) with 44% males and 56% females. No significant improvement was seen in pain intensity as measured by VAS and bodily pain SF-36 scores pre treatment and at 12 and 24 months post IDET. There were no significant differences in the remaining SF-36 subscales. Only 11% used less pain medication. Sitting tolerance improved between pre and 1-year post IDET, the difference was not significant. Eight (20%) patients underwent further surgery; 5 disc replacement and 3 fusions at 1-year post treatment.

Conclusion: The patients with IDD did not show any improvement at 1-year or 2-year post IDET. A significant proportion of patients required further surgery. We believe that the efficacy of IDET is doubtful.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Objective: To investigate association between recovery from low back pain (LBP) and body mass index (BMI) in patients with LBP undergoing physiotherapy.

Introduction: The relationship between obesity and LBP has long been debated. There are no published studies examining the influence of BMI on recovery from LBP.

Methods: One hundred and forty patients with chronic LBP and no neurological deficit underwent a back-specific physiotherapy programme. BMI and recovery parameters such as pain intensity (visual analogue scale scores), and self-experienced impairment and disability scores were measured. The range of motion of the lumber spine was also recorded. These variables were compared pre and post treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t tests, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients and ANCOVA.

Results: Mean age was 38 years (range 18–67) with 62% males and 38% females. The treatment resulted in significant improvements in all the recovery parameters (P < 0.005, paired t test). No significant association was detected between the BMI of subjects and % changes in pain intensity, self-experienced impairment and disability, and range of motion of the lumbar spine. A comparative analysis of the after treatment recovery parameter scores in normal (BMI ≤24.9), overweight (BMI 25–29.9) and obese (BMI ≥ 30) revealed no significant differences in the mean pain intensity and mean self-experienced impairment and disability scores.

Conclusion: Although a BMI within normal range is desirable for prevention of many health conditions including LBP, it does not influence the overall recovery from low back pain in patients undergoing physiotherapy treatment.

Study Design: Prospective longitudinal study with a 2-year follow-up.

Background: Intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) was introduced to bridge the gap between conservative measures (analgesia, physiotherapy and standard injection therapy) and radical surgery (disc replacement and fusion) for the treatment of internal disc disruption (IDD). Recent reports have questioned the efficacy and safety of this so called less invasive treatment technology.

Objective: To assess the long-term outcome of patients with chronic discogenic low back pain (< 6 months duration) treated with IDET who had previously failed to improve with comprehensive nonoperative treatment.

Methods: Forty patients with IDD determined by provocative discography and pre-operative MRI were treated with IDET. VAS pain scores, SF-36 scores, analgesic usage and sitting tolerance times (mins) were collected pre-treatment and at 12 and 24 months. Subsequent treatments were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests to test for differences in the outcome parameter scores.

Results: Average age was 46 years (range 25–62 years) with 44% males and 56% females. The study group demonstrated no significant improvement in pain intensity as measured by VAS and bodily pain SF-36 scores pre treatment and at 12 and 24 months post IDET. There were no significant differences in the remaining SF-36 subscale scores at 0, 12 and 24 months after treatment. Analgesia requirement remained the same in 77% of the patients; 12% required stronger analgesia and only 11% used less pain medication. Although sitting tolerance improved between pre and 1-year post IDET, the difference was not significant. Eight (20%) patients underwent further surgery in the form of a disc replacement or fusion at 1-year post treatment.

Conclusion: The patients with chronic discogenic low back pain in this study did not show any improvement at 1-year or 2-year post IDET treatment. A significant proportion of patients underwent further surgery for persisting low back pain. We believe that the efficacy of IDET in the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain is doubtful.