Die degenerative Lendenwirbelsäule

Zusammenfassung

Was häufig ist, ist häufig. Routinierte Befragung, problem-orientierte Untersuchung sowie zügige Diagnostik und we-nig spezifizierte Therapieverordnungen sind alltäglich. Zur Optimierung und Effizienz der Entscheidungsfindung ist ein streng prozessuales Denken und Handeln hilfreich. Wir ha-ben deshalb die Gliederung in Anamneseprozess, Befundprozess und Diagnoseprozess vorgenommen, mit dem klaren Hintergrund, dass nur bei entsprechendem Können und Wissen des Arztes bestmögliche Diagnosen resultieren. Therapie unwirksam? ⇒ zurück zu vertiefter Anamnese, Befund und Differenzialdiagnose! Warum nicht?

Summary

What is common, is common. Routine questioning and problem-focused investigations with quick diagnoses, coupled with few prescriptions of specified therapies, occur on a daily basis. To optimize the effectiveness of decision-making, a strict process of thinking and implementation is helpful. We have therefore taken steps to distinguish between processes of anamnesis, findings and diagnosis with clear histories in mind. This leads to the best possible diagnoses at the current level of ability and knowledge of the doctor. Ineffective therapy? => back to close observations of an-amnesis, findings and differential diagnosis, why not?

Schlüsselwörter

Degenerative Lendenwirbelsäule

Keywords

Degenerative lumbar spine

• Weiterführende Literatur

• 1 Bigos SJ, Bowyer OR, Braen GR. Clinical Practice Guidelines. Vol. 14, Public Health Service Edition, US Department of Health an Human Services. 1994
• 2 Binkley J, Stratford PW, Gill C. Interrater reliability of lumbar accessory motion mobility testing. Phys Ther 1995; 75 (09) 786-792.
• 3 Boos N, Lander PH. Clinical efficacy of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of low-back pain disorders. Eur Spine J 1996; 5 (01) 2-22.
• 4 Byfield D, Humphreys K. Intra and inter-examiner-reliability of bony landmarks identification in the lumbar spine. Eur J Chiropractic 1992; 72: 13-17.
• 5 Carragee EJ, Hannibal M. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 2004; 35 (01) 7-16.
• 6 Dolan AL, Ryan PJ, Arden NK, Stratton R, Wedley JR, Hamann W, Fogelman I, Gibson T. The value of SPECT scans in identifying back pain likely to benefit from facet joint injection. Br J Rheumatol 1996; 35 (12) 1269-1273.
• 7 Fisher MA. Electrophysiology of radiculopathies. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113 (03) 317-335.
• 8 Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillan MG, Vale L, Scott NW, Campbell MK, Wardlaw D, Knight D, McIntosh E, Porter RW. Does early imaging influence management and improve outcome in patients with low back pain? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (17) 1-131.
• 9 Gillan MG, Gilbert FJ, Andrew JE, Grant AM, Wardlaw D, Valentine NW, Gregori AC. Influence of imaging on clinical decision making in the treatment of lower back pain. Radiology 2001; 220 (02) 393-399.
• 10 Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137 (07) 586-597.
• 11 Jarvik JJ, Hollingworth W, Heagerty P, Haynor DR, Deyo RA. The Longitudinal Assessment of Imaging and Disability of the Back (LAID Back) Study: baseline data. Spine 2001; 26 (10) 1158-1166.
• 12 Kendall NAS, Linton SJ, Main CJ. Guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain: risk factors for long-term disability and work loss. Accident Rehabilitation Compensation Insurance Corporation of New Zealand and the National Health Committee: Wellington; 1997
• 13 Kent DL, Haynor DR, Larson EB, Deyo RA. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis in adults: a metaanalysis of the accuracy of CT, MR, and myelography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158 (05) 1135-1144.
• 14 Lindsay DM, Meuwisse WH, Mooney ME. Interrater reliability of manual therapy assessment techniques. Physioth Can 1994; 47: 173-180.
• 15 Maher C, Adams R. Reliability of pain and stiffness assessments in clinical manual spine examination. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 801-809.
• 16 Mannion AF, Connolly B, Wood K, Dolan P. The use of surface EMG power spectral analysis in the evaluation of back muscle function. J Rehab Res Devel 1997; 34 (04) 427-439.
• 17 McCombe PF, Fairbank JC, Cockersole BC, Pynsent PB. 1989 Volvo Award in clinical sciences. Reproducibility of physical signs in low-back pain. Spine 1989; 14 (09) 908-918.
• 18 Phillips DR, Twomey LT. A comparison of manual diagnosis with a diagnosis established by a uni-level lumbar spinal block procedure. Man Ther 2000; 1 (02) 82-87.
• 19 Richter T, Lawall J. Reliability of diagnostic findings in manual medicine. Manuelle Med 1993; 31: 1-11.
• 20 Saal JS. General principles of diagnostic testing as related to painful lumbar spine disorders: a critical appraisal of current diagnostic techniques. Spine 2002; 27 (22) 2538-2545.
• 21 Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Derby R, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N. Clinical features of patients with pain stemming from the lumbar zygapophysial joints. Is the lumbar facet syndrome a clinical entity?. Spine 1994; 19 (10) 1132-1137.
• 22 Strender LE, Sjoblom A, Sundell K, Ludwig R, Taube A. Interexaminer reliability in physical examination of patients with low back pain. Spine 1997; 22 (07) 814-820.
• 23 van den Hoogen HM, Koes BW, van Eijk JT, Bouter LM. On the accuracy of history, physical examination, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate in diagnosing low back pain in general practice. A criteria-based review of the literature. Spine 1995; 20 (03) 318-327.
• 24 van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Spinal radiographic findings and nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of observational studies. Spine 1997; 22 (04) 427-434.
• 25 Waddell G, Main CJ, Morris EW, Venner RM, Rae PS, Sharmy SH, Galloway H. Normality and reliability in the clinical assessment of backache. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 284 6328 1519-1523.