Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study establishes cervical disc volume norms in pain-positive versus pain-negative discs, highlighting clinical implications.
Background MRI does not reliably identify symptomatic cervical discs, and normative cervical disc volumetrics remain poorly defined. Objective To establish level-specific cervical disc volume norms after excluding non-intradiscal contrast flow and to compare volumes between pain-positive and pain-negative discs. Methods This retrospective 10-year study analyzed cervical discograms with contained intradiscal filling; discs with epidural, vascular, or prevertebral extravasation were excluded. Injected volumes were recorded, and interlevel and pain-group comparisons were performed using ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis, t-tests, and Mann–Whitney U testing. Results A total of 135 discs met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean injected cervical disc volume was 0.24 ± 0.10 mL (range, 0.10 – 0.60 mL), with no significant differences across cervical levels. Pain-positive discs demonstrated higher injected volumes at C3/4, C4/5, C5/6, and C6/7 compared with pain-negative discs (p < 0.05). Conclusion Cervical disc volumetrics are consistent across levels, with higher volumes noted in pain-positive discs at mid-cervical levels. These baseline values should be referenced for intradiscal injections to guide administered volumes and to help prevent disc overpressurization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sultan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: