Continuing Education Activity

Spinal osteoarthritis is a prevalent and often disabling contributor to low back and neck pain, conditions that affect most adults at some point and impose substantial societal and economic burdens. Degeneration of the spinal “3-joint complex,” consisting of the intervertebral disc and paired facet joints, leads to structural changes such as disc space narrowing, osteophyte formation, and facet arthropathy. This course explores the etiologic, multifactorial, whole-joint disease process of spinal osteoarthritis, driven by age, genetic susceptibility, mechanical stress, metabolic factors, and low-grade inflammation, which has evolved beyond the contemporary understanding of a simplistic “wear and tear” model as well as the modern pathophysiological model, which frames spinal osteoarthritis as a disease of the entire joint, involving low-grade inflammation, subchondral bone changes, and central sensitization. The clinical challenge of discordance between imaging findings and symptoms, requiring careful history and examination and the selective use of diagnostic medial branch blocks to confirm facet-mediated pain, is also discussed.

This activity equips clinicians with evidence-based strategies for evaluating and managing spinal osteoarthritis using a stepped, patient-centered approach. Participants will also gain an understanding of appropriate imaging interpretation, guideline-directed conservative therapies, and indications for interventional procedures such as radiofrequency ablation. This activity for healthcare professionals is designed to enhance the learner's competence in identifying spinal osteoarthritis, performing the recommended evaluation, mitigating risks, and implementing an appropriate interprofessional approach to manage this condition and improve functional outcomes through comprehensive, multimodal therapy.

Objectives:

• Identify the key pathophysiological drivers of spinal osteoarthritis.
• Apply a modern diagnostic framework for spinal osteoarthritis.
• Develop an evidence-based, multimodal management plan for patients with spinal osteoarthritis, aligned with current guidelines.
• Implement interprofessional team strategies that integrate a biopsychosocial framework to coordinate care for patients with chronic spinal osteoarthritis, with a focus on functional goals.

Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.

Introduction

Osteoarthritis is a common and often debilitating condition that affects the articular surfaces of joints, developing gradually over time and resulting in significant pain and restricted motion. Low back pain is a common experience, with approximately 80% of Americans encountering at least 1 significant episode in their lifetime.[1] Low back pain is one of the leading reasons people visit healthcare practitioners in the United States and serves as a major cause of chronic pain, disability, and significant economic strain.[1] Spinal osteoarthritis is a major contributor to this burden. Although many episodes of spinal pain are self-limiting and can be effectively treated with conservative methods, the ongoing management of chronic spinal pain requires significant healthcare resources.[1]

The societal impact of spinal pain is staggering. In 2021, the total economic cost of chronic pain in the United States was estimated to be $722.8 billion, encompassing both direct medical costs and lost productivity.[2] Low back and neck pain accounted for the highest healthcare spending among 154 conditions in 2016, at an estimated $134.5 billion.[3] Furthermore, low back pain alone is responsible for an estimated 149 million lost workdays in the United States annually, making it a leading cause of work-related disability.[4] The number of back pain cases is projected to continue increasing due to global trends of an aging population and rising rates of obesity.[5]

The functional unit of the spine, often termed the "3-joint complex," consists of 2 posterior facet (zygapophyseal) joints and an anterior intervertebral disc.[1] The progressive degeneration of this complex over time leads to the characteristic structural changes of spinal osteoarthritis, including the formation of vertebral osteophytes (bone spurs) and narrowing of the disc space.[1] A fundamental challenge in both the diagnosis and treatment of this condition is the well-documented and significant discordance between radiographic imaging findings of osteoarthritis and a patient's actual clinical symptoms, a reality that complicates clinical decision-making.[6]

The term spinal osteoarthritis is used inconsistently across clinical, epidemiologic, and imaging literature. The strict musculoskeletal definition of osteoarthritis is the progressive failure of a synovial joint, including cartilage, subchondral bone, synovium, and capsule. The spinal facet joint is the spinal structure that most directly fits that definition.[7] Many epidemiologic and radiographic frameworks instead define “spine osteoarthritis” using a composite of disc space narrowing with vertebral osteophytes at the same spinal level, often labeled spondylosis.[8] This definitional variability matters clinically because disc degeneration, facet arthropathy, and ligamentous hypertrophy can coexist and contribute to distinct symptom patterns within the same segment. 

Etiology

The scientific understanding of osteoarthritis has undergone a significant paradigm shift, moving away from the traditional and overly simplistic "wear and tear" model. The contemporary view, supported by extensive molecular and clinical research, recognizes spinal osteoarthritis as a complex, multifactorial disease of the entire joint organ. A dynamic and intricate interplay of genetic predisposition, mechanical forces, low-grade inflammation, and systemic metabolic influences drives its etiology.[9]

Genetic predisposition is a major, nonmodifiable risk factor, with some studies estimating the heritability of spinal osteoarthritis to be as high as 70%.[10] Modern genetic research has definitively shown that, rather than being caused by a few specific gene mutations, osteoarthritis is a highly polygenic disease.[11] Extensive genome-wide association studies have identified more than 100 distinct DNA variants strongly linked to an increased risk of developing osteoarthritis. A significant finding of this study is that most variants linked to risk are located in regions of the genome that do not encode proteins. This indicates that their primary role is not to produce a single flawed protein, but rather to alter gene expression regulation subtly.[11] An individual's genetic risk is therefore determined by the cumulative effect of many such common variants, each contributing a small effect.[11] These genetic discoveries have implicated multiple biological pathways, including those involved in skeletal development, inflammation, and the maintenance of the extracellular matrix.

Beyond genetics, several other factors are critical in the development of spinal osteoarthritis:

• Age: Age remains the most significant and consistently identified risk factor for osteoarthritis.9 With aging, the resident cells of cartilage (chondrocytes) exhibit a natural decline in their ability to replicate and synthesize new matrix components, impairing their capacity to repair the cartilage matrix after daily mechanical stress effectively.
• Obesity and metabolic factors: Excess body weight is a powerful contributor to osteoarthritis, acting through 2 distinct but synergistic mechanisms. First, it increases the mechanical load on weight-bearing joints, eg, the spine. Second, adipose tissue is a metabolically active organ that releases a variety of proinflammatory cytokines into the circulation. This creates a systemic, low-grade inflammatory state that can directly promote cartilage degradation and synovial inflammation.[12]
• Gender: A clear gender disparity is observed in osteoarthritis prevalence, with women being more commonly and often more severely affected, particularly after menopause, suggesting a hormonal influence.[1]
• Mechanical factors: The mechanical environment of the joint is a crucial determinant of its long-term health. Prior significant joint injury, repetitive occupational or recreational stresses, and congenital or developmental abnormalities of the spine can all alter joint mechanics and alignment, leading to abnormal stress concentrations and premature osteoarthritis.[1]

Epidemiology

Radiographic evidence of spinal osteoarthritis is exceptionally common in the general population, and its prevalence increases dramatically with age. In individuals older than 60, approximately 85% show some evidence of cervical spondylosis on imaging studies.[13] Similarly, facet joint arthritis is present in 57% of individuals aged 65 or older in the United States.[1]

While the thoracic spine has historically been less frequently studied, its contribution to spinal pain is increasingly recognized. A landmark population-based longitudinal study that utilized computed tomography (CT) scans found that more than half of adults aged 40 to 59 had prevalent thoracic facet joint osteoarthritis, with the prevalence increasing 2- to 4-fold in older age groups.[14]

Lumbar spine osteoarthritis affects a substantial portion of the population, with the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels being the most commonly involved due to higher mechanical loads.[1] Globally, lumbar spondylosis is estimated to affect 266 million people.[15] The Global Burden of Disease 2021 study provides the most comprehensive data on the symptomatic impact, estimating that 619 million people worldwide were affected by lower back pain, which remains the leading cause of disability worldwide.[14] The overall global burden of all forms of osteoarthritis is also massive, with an estimated 527.81 million prevalent cases in 2019.[16] The Global Burden of Disease 2021 study also tracks neck pain separately, which affected over 222 million people in 2019.[13] These large-scale epidemiological studies underscore the immense societal and healthcare burden imposed by degenerative spinal conditions.[17]

Pathophysiology

The modern understanding of spinal osteoarthritis pathophysiology embraces a "whole-joint" concept, recognizing that the disease process involves a complex interplay between all tissues of the spinal motion segment, including the cartilage, subchondral bone, and synovium.[9] The degenerative cascade often begins with age-related biochemical changes within the intervertebral disc, leading to loss of height and hydration. This alters the distribution of mechanical loads across the spinal segment. As the disc narrows, a greater percentage of the axial and torsional forces are transferred posteriorly to the facet joints, which can initiate and accelerate their degeneration.[1] Observational magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data support a common temporal sequence in which disc degeneration precedes facet osteoarthritis. In lumbar MRI studies, facet osteoarthritis was not seen in the absence of disc degeneration, and facet joint degeneration often emerged long after disc degeneration began, consistent with a delayed posterior-joint response to chronic altered mechanics.[18] As this process unfolds, several of the following key biological mechanisms are at play:

• Low-grade inflammation: Contrary to the old view of osteoarthritis as a noninflammatory condition, the idea that chronic, low-grade inflammation of the synovial lining of the facet joints is a central driver of the disease is now widely accepted.[9][19] Proinflammatory cytokines produced by synovial cells directly degrade the cartilage matrix and sensitize nerve endings, thereby contributing to pain signaling.[9]
• Subchondral bone remodeling: Pathological changes in the subchondral bone are now recognized as a primary element of the disease, rather than a secondary consequence of cartilage loss. Subchondral bone marrow lesions, visible on MRI, are strongly associated with pain and can predict the rate of subsequent cartilage loss in the overlying joint.[19]
• Central sensitization: In a significant subset of patients with chronic spinal pain, the pain experience is amplified and sustained by neuroplastic changes in the central nervous system. This phenomenon, also referred to as central sensitization, results in a state of hyperexcitability in which pain is disproportionate to the degree of peripheral joint damage and helps explain why treatments targeting only the peripheral joint may fail.[1]

Histopathology

As the spine ages and undergoes degenerative changes, characteristic alterations occur at the microscopic level. In the cervical spine, common findings include splitting and fissuring of the vertebral endplates and the formation of osteophytes at the joint margins.[5] Histologically, the thickness of the calcified cartilage layer increases while the overlying hyaline cartilage thins and loses its smooth surface. Subchondral sclerosis, characterized by increased subchondral bone formation, is commonly observed in the lumbar spine.[19] A notable finding in degenerative tissue is an increased number of macrophages in the subchondral bone, underscoring the active inflammatory component of the disease process at the tissue level.[9]

History and Physical

Clinical History

The clinical presentation of symptomatic spinal osteoarthritis is typically characterized by a constellation of symptoms, including pain, stiffness, and restricted motion, often accompanied by referred pain patterns.[20] A thorough patient history is the first step in forming a diagnostic hypothesis. Patients commonly describe the pain as a dull, deep ache rather than a sharp or burning sensation. Osteoarthritis characteristically follows a mechanical pattern, meaning this condition is exacerbated by activities that load the spine, particularly movements involving spinal extension, eg, prolonged standing, walking, or overhead activities. Conversely, the pain is often alleviated by rest or by adopting positions that unload the posterior spinal elements (eg, sitting or bending forward).[10] Patients may also report significant stiffness, especially in the morning or after periods of inactivity, which typically improves with movement.

The pattern of pain referral is a key diagnostic clue that can help differentiate facet-mediated pain from other sources (eg, discogenic or radicular pain).[21] In the lumbar spine, facet-mediated pain commonly radiates to the buttock, groin, and posterior or lateral thigh, but it characteristically does not extend below the knee. Pain that radiates in a narrow, dermatomal pattern down the leg and below the knee is more suggestive of nerve root compression (radiculopathy).[10] In the cervical spine, the referral patterns are also level-dependent. The upper cervical complex (C0-C3) is known to produce pain in the occipital region, which is often associated with cervicogenic headaches. The mid-cervical and lower-cervical facet joints (C3-C7) can refer pain to the posterior scapular region, the shoulder, and the upper arm.[10]

Physical Examination

A systematic approach to the physical examination involves inspection, palpation, and assessment of both active and passive ranges of motion. Inspection may reveal changes in normal spinal curvature, eg, a reduced lumbar lordosis, as the patient unconsciously seeks to unload the painful joints. Palpation should focus on identifying deep, localized paraspinal tenderness directly over the facet joints, which, while not definitive, is weakly associated with a positive response to facet joint interventions.[10] This must be differentiated from more superficial muscle tenderness or midline tenderness over the spinous processes.

Assessment of the range of motion is also critical. Reproduction of the patient's typical pain with combined spinal extension and rotation (a "facet loading" maneuver, also known as Kemp's test) is a classic finding that increases clinical suspicion but is not specific for facet-mediated pain.[10] Despite a long history of attempts to correlate physical signs with facet pathology, extensive research has concluded that no pathognomonic physical examination or historical signs reliably predict a response to diagnostic facet joint blocks. For example, a set of 7 clinical characteristics, known as Revel's criteria, was once proposed to identify patients with facet pain; however, subsequent studies found these criteria to have low sensitivity, meaning they would fail to identify many patients who would ultimately respond to diagnostic injections.[10]

Neurologic assessment

A thorough neurological examination is crucial to rule out nerve root compression (radiculopathy) or spinal cord involvement (myelopathy) and should include an assessment of muscle strength in key myotomes, sensation to light touch and pinprick in dermatomes, and deep tendon reflexes. The straight leg raise test helps identify lumbosacral nerve root tension, but is not a diagnostic test for facet-mediated pain.[10] Finally, clinicians must actively screen for "red flags"—signs and symptoms that could indicate a more serious underlying condition,  including a history of cancer, unexplained weight loss, fever, recent significant trauma, progressive neurological deficits, or symptoms of cauda equina syndrome, eg, saddle anesthesia or bladder and bowel incontinence. The presence of any red flags warrants further, often urgent, investigation beyond a standard workup for osteoarthritis.

Evaluation

Imaging Studies

A cornerstone principle in the evaluation of spinal osteoarthritis is the well-documented poor correlation between the severity of degenerative findings on imaging and the presence or intensity of a patient's symptoms.[1] Numerous studies have shown that degenerative changes are nearly ubiquitous in asymptomatic individuals as they age, and a comprehensive scoping review concluded that the published evidence does not support the notion that osteoarthritis causes zygapophysial joint pain.[1][22] 

This radiographic-clinical discordance is the fundamental rationale for why major clinical practice guidelines strongly advise against the routine use of imaging for evaluating nonspecific back pain. Imaging is appropriately reserved for situations in which "red flag" pathologies are suspected, when a patient's symptoms are severe and progressive, and when results are needed to plan specific interventional or surgical procedures. While advanced imaging modalities (eg, SPECT) have been investigated, consensus guidelines note that their use in predicting facet block outcomes is supported only by weak to moderate evidence, and that CT is not recommended for routine diagnostic evaluation of facet pain.[10]

When the clinical question is facet-mediated axial pain, imaging primarily characterizes structural degeneration and excludes competing pathology, but does not localize the pain generator with sufficient certainty for definitive treatment selection. Facet arthropathy is common in asymptomatic individuals, with CT studies demonstrating cervical facet arthropathy in 33% and lumbar facet arthropathy in 37%, including moderate and severe grades.[23] Community-based CT data also demonstrate high structural prevalence without a consistent pain association, with no association between facet osteoarthritis at any lumbar level and low back pain in a Framingham-based sample.[24]

CT is the most sensitive modality for osseous facet morphology (osteophytes, hypertrophy, and erosions), while MRI provides soft-tissue and marrow assessment and can characterize coexisting disc and canal pathology.[25][18]

Weishaupt classification

The Weishaupt classification grades lumbar facet osteoarthritis on CT or MRI using the following joint space and osteoarthritic features:

• Grade 0: Normal joint space.
• Grade 1: Joint space narrowing less than 2 mm OR small osteophytes OR mild articular process hypertrophy
• Grade 2: Joint space narrowing OR moderate osteophytes OR moderate articular process hypertrophy OR mild subarticular bone erosion
• Grade 3: Joint space narrowing OR large osteophytes OR severe articular process hypertrophy OR severe subarticular bone erosion OR subchondral cysts [25]

Diagnostic Injections

Because imaging cannot reliably identify the specific anatomical source of a patient's pain, diagnostic injections are considered the clinical standard for determining whether a patient's pain is facet-mediated.[26][10] A diagnostic medial branch block, which involves anesthetizing the small nerves that supply a specific facet joint, is the preferred diagnostic test before considering a definitive treatment, eg, radiofrequency ablation.[10] A significant decrease in the patient's typical pain—with a threshold of at least 50% relief being the most commonly recommended standard in clinical guidelines—following a controlled block can help confirm that the targeted facet joint is the primary source of pain.[10]

The 2020 guidelines for facet joint interventions recommended the following:

• Lumbar medial branch blocks should be performed under image guidance using CT or fluoroscopy. Ultrasound can be considered in select circumstances where radiation avoidance is prioritized, and expertise is available. 
• Sedation should not be routinely used for diagnostic or prognostic facet injections in the absence of a specific indication because it can increase the false-positive rate (sedation confounds pain reporting). 
• For lumbar medial branch blocks, total injectate volume should be less than 0.5 mL to reduce anesthetic spread to adjacent structures (spread increases false positives). For intra-articular facet injections, the total injectate volume should be less than 1.5 mL.
• A pain reduction greater than 50% is the recommended threshold for a positive prognostic block. Pain reduction driven by decreased activity, residual sedation, or increased analgesic use should not be counted as a true positive response.[10]

While a single diagnostic block is often recommended for clinical practice, the use of dual, comparative blocks with different durations of anesthetics (eg, lidocaine and bupivacaine) can increase diagnostic certainty by reducing the high false-positive rate associated with single injections. However, this more rigorous approach is often reserved for clinical trials.[26][10]

Treatment / Management

The management of spinal osteoarthritis should be comprehensive, multimodal, patient-centered, and adhere to a stepped-care framework that prioritizes low-risk, high-value interventions before progressing to more invasive options.

Conservative Management

Initial conservative therapies for patients with spinal osteoarthritis include:

• Patient education and self-management: Self-management education is the cornerstone of care. Patients should be educated about the nature of the condition, reassured of its favorable prognosis, and encouraged to remain active.[27]
• Physical therapy and exercise: A tailored exercise program that includes strengthening, flexibility, and aerobic conditioning is strongly recommended to reduce pain and improve function.[27]
• Weight management: For patients who are overweight or obese, weight loss is critical to reduce both mechanical load on the spine and systemic inflammation.[12]
• Psychological approaches: For patients with chronic pain, especially those with significant psychosocial factors, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be effective in addressing pain-related fear and catastrophizing.[1]

Pharmacological Management

Pharmacologic therapies for spinal osteoarthritis include:

• Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): Oral NSAIDs are the first-line pharmacological option for pain control; however, they should be used at the minimum effective dose for the shortest duration, with careful consideration of cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal risks.[1]
• Acetaminophen: Contrary to previous guidelines, high-quality evidence has shown that acetaminophen is ineffective for spinal pain and is no longer recommended as a standalone therapy by major clinical practice guidelines, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).[10]
• Adjunctive medications: Duloxetine may be considered for chronic low back pain. Skeletal muscle relaxants may be used for short-term relief of acute pain.[1]
• Opioids: Opioids are not recommended for chronic low back pain due to a lack of evidence for long-term benefit and a high risk of harm, including dependence.[1]

Other Modalities

Additional therapies that may be considered in the management of spinal osteoarthritis include:

• Manual Therapy: Spinal manipulation may be considered for short-term pain relief as part of a broader treatment package.[26]
• Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: The efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) appears to be dose-dependent, requiring application at a strong but comfortable intensity to engage central pain-modulating mechanisms.[28]

Interventional Procedures

Interventional procedures include:

• Therapeutic injections: The long-term therapeutic use of intra-articular steroid injections or medial branch blocks with steroids for axial spinal pain has little supporting evidence.[29]
• Radiofrequency ablation (RFA): RFA (or neurotomy) is a procedure that uses thermal energy to create a lesion on the medial branch nerves, interrupting pain signals from the facet joint. For patients with confirmed facet-mediated pain (based on positive diagnostic medial branch blocks), RFA can provide clinically significant pain relief for a medium-term duration, typically 6 to 18 months.[1]

Facet-directed procedures are considered after an adequate course of conservative care when axial pain remains function-limiting, and the diagnostic pathway supports facet-mediated pain. The key decision node is the controlled medial branch block response: greater than 50% pain reduction under usual activity expectations supports proceeding to lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation, using image guidance and technique safeguards to limit off-target injury.[10]

Therapeutic intra-articular facet injections are not recommended for routine use because durable benefit is inconsistent, and many responders can be better served with definitive denervation when appropriate. Therapeutic facet injections can be considered in select circumstances when radiofrequency ablation carries unacceptable risk, when radiofrequency access is limited, or when a prior diagnostic injection provided prolonged relief and patient-specific factors favor repetition.[10]

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses support radiofrequency neurotomy as an effective option in carefully selected populations with chronic low back pain, particularly when diagnostic blocks have been used for case selection. A meta-analysis of randomized trials found evidence of clinically meaningful improvements in pain and function after lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy, with outcomes varying across techniques and selection criteria.[30]

Surgical Referral

Surgery is considered for specific, well-defined patient populations, eg, those with severe, functionally limiting radiculopathy or spinal stenosis or spinal instability, who have failed to improve with comprehensive conservative management. Surgical options may include decompression (laminectomy) or spinal fusion, though fusion for degenerative conditions without instability remains controversial.[1][6]

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis of conditions that cause back pain is extensive and varies by region. In the cervical area, possible etiologies include:

• Rheumatic diseases: fibromyalgia, polymyalgia rheumatica, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, degenerative joint disorders, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis
• Trauma: fractures, dislocations, soft tissue injury
• Regional conditions: myofascial pain, osteomyelitis, septic discitis, septic arthritis, synovial cyst, torticollis syndrome
• Bone conditions: Paget disease, osteomalacia, osteoporosis, metastatic tumor
• Neurological: meningitis, cerebral palsy, paralysis of cervical muscles [8][31]

Many etiologies of low back pain share similar presentations. Mechanical origin of low back pain is the most common cause, accounting for 97% of acute back pain cases. Lumbar strain or sprain is the leading cause of mechanical low back pain, accounting for approximately 70% of cases. 

While the list is not comprehensive, the etiologies of thoracolumbar back pain include:

• Mechanical: lumbar strain/sprain, degenerative conditions, herniated disc, spinal stenosis, compression fracture, spondylolisthesis, fracture, congenital disease
• Nonmechanical: neoplasia, infection, inflammatory conditions, Scheuermann disease, Paget disease
• Visceral disease: pelvic organ disease, renal disease, aortic aneurysm, gastrointestinal disease [1]

Prognosis

For most individuals, a new episode of acute low back pain is typically self-limiting, with significant symptom improvement occurring within the first few weeks to months.[27] However, the long-term prognosis is not universally favorable, as recurrences are very common.[17] Studies have found that more than 60% of individuals will continue to have pain or frequent recurrences 1 year after the initial onset. A notable subset of patients, estimated at around 23%, will go on to develop chronic low back pain that persists for more than 3 months.[1][4] This transition to chronicity represents a significant challenge for both patients and healthcare systems.

While spinal osteoarthritis is a structurally progressive condition, understanding that the presence and severity of degenerative changes on radiographs do not reliably predict a patient's symptoms, functional limitations, or future disability is essential.[1] In fact, many individuals with significant osteoarthritic changes on imaging are entirely asymptomatic, and a comprehensive scoping review concluded that the published evidence does not support the notion that osteoarthritis causes zygapophysial joint pain. This radiographic-clinical discordance underscores the complexity of spinal pain and highlights the importance of a patient-centered, rather than image-centered, approach to prognosis and management.

The prognosis is highly variable and depends on a multitude of factors that predict the transition from acute to chronic pain. These risk factors are not solely biomechanical but encompass a wide range of biopsychosocial elements. Factors associated with a poorer prognosis include a greater initial disease burden (eg, high baseline pain intensity and greater disability), lifestyle factors including a sedentary lifestyle, obesity, and smoking, and significant psychosocial factors.[1] Psychological distress, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and poor coping mechanisms like fear-avoidant behavior are potent predictors of persistent disabling low back pain.[1][17]

Therefore, a favorable long-term prognosis is most achievable through a comprehensive, multimodal management plan that addresses these modifiable factors. A plan focused on improving function, encouraging activity, and promoting self-management can lead to significant and lasting improvements in quality of life. Multimodal management can prevent the development of long-term disability, even if the underlying structural changes persist.[27] By empowering patients with education and active coping strategies, healthcare teams can positively influence the trajectory of the condition, moving the focus from structural pathology to functional well-being and long-term resilience.[32]

Complications

Untreated or poorly managed chronic pain from spinal osteoarthritis can lead to a cascade of negative consequences, including significant long-term disability, progressive functional decline, and a substantially reduced quality of life. This disability often manifests as difficulty with basic activities of daily living, loss of independence, and an inability to maintain employment, contributing to a significant socioeconomic burden.[17] Furthermore, the persistent nature of the pain is strongly associated with psychological comorbidities, including major depression and anxiety disorders, which can create a vicious cycle of worsening pain perception and functional impairment.[1] Sleep disturbances are also a common and debilitating complication, further exacerbating pain, fatigue, and mood disorders.

Complications can also arise directly from the treatments used to manage the condition. While often effective for short-term pain relief, the extended use of NSAIDs carries substantial risks, including gastrointestinal complications (eg, ulcers and bleeding), as well as renal toxicity and an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke.[27] The use of opioids, which are strongly recommended against for chronic low back pain, carries a high risk of dependence, addiction, and overdose, in addition to significant adverse effects, including constipation, sedation, and the paradoxical phenomenon of opioid-induced hyperalgesia, where pain sensitivity actually increases.[1][33]

Interventional procedures, while often necessary for refractory pain, are not without their own risks. Epidural steroid injections and facet joint interventions carry risks of infection, bleeding, nerve damage, and dural puncture leading to postdural puncture headaches.[10][20] Surgical interventions, such as decompression or fusion, have more significant potential complications, including surgical site infections, hardware failure, pseudoarthrosis (failure of the bone to fuse), and the development of adjacent segment disease, where the levels above or below the fusion experience accelerated degeneration.[20]

Beyond the complications of pain and its treatment, the progressive structural changes of spinal osteoarthritis can lead to specific neurological syndromes. A rare but devastating complication of severe lumbar spinal pathology is cauda equina syndrome, a true surgical emergency characterized by bilateral sciatica, saddle anesthesia, and acute bladder or bowel dysfunction, which requires immediate surgical decompression to prevent permanent neurological damage.[1] More commonly, progressive osteophyte formation and hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum can lead to severe lumbar spinal stenosis, causing neurogenic claudication—pain, numbness, and weakness in the legs that worsen with standing or walking and are relieved by sitting or bending forward.[20] Degeneration of the facet joints can also lead to degenerative spondylolisthesis, a slippage of 1 vertebra over another, which can further compromise the spinal canal and exacerbate stenotic symptoms.

Consultations

Managing the complexity of spinal osteoarthritis effectively requires a deliberate shift from a purely biomedical model toward a collaborative, interprofessional team approach. The multifaceted nature of the condition, with its overlapping pain types, makes a single-clinician strategy insufficient for many patients with chronic symptoms.[1][21] This team-based care is a cornerstone of modern chronic pain management and is consistently recommended in clinical practice guidelines.[32][27] The goal is to manage the whole person, integrating various therapeutic modalities to improve function, reduce disability, and enhance overall quality of life.[21]

This integrated approach is grounded in the biopsychosocial framework, which posits that low back pain is a dynamic interaction among biological (eg, joint pathology), psychological (eg, pain-related fear, catastrophizing), and social (eg, work environment, family support) factors.[1] These elements reciprocally influence one another, creating feedback loops that can either perpetuate or alleviate pain and disability. An integrated approach model helps to explain the poor correlation between structural changes on imaging and a patient's symptoms, as it acknowledges that the pain experience is shaped by far more than just the state of the joint tissues. An interprofessional team is uniquely equipped to assess and address these interconnected domains in ways a single clinician cannot.[32]

The core interprofessional team typically includes primary care clinicians, physical therapists, pain management specialists, psychologists, and surgeons.[1] Primary care clinicians are ideally positioned to perform the initial assessment, provide crucial patient education, and initiate first-line conservative treatments while avoiding premature imaging or referrals. Physical therapists play a central role in delivering non-pharmacological interventions, designing tailored exercise programs that are strongly recommended to reduce pain and improve function.[27][34] Psychologists address the significant psychosocial factors that predict the transition to chronic pain, using evidence-based approaches like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) to help patients reframe unhelpful thoughts and beliefs about their pain.[1][32] For patients with refractory pain, pain management specialists can accurately diagnose the specific pain generators and perform procedures such as radiofrequency ablation. Surgical consultation is reserved for a small subset of patients with severe, progressive neurological deficits.[10]

Deterrence and Patient Education

Patient education is a critical, active component of effective management for spinal osteoarthritis, serving as a foundational intervention that empowers patients and improves outcomes. Clinicians must educate patients about their condition and the range of available treatments, as this knowledge can help prevent acute pain from progressing to a chronic state.[32] This educational process should be a collaborative dialogue, framed within a biopsychosocial model that acknowledges the patient's beliefs, fears, and goals. The aim is to demystify the condition, reduce anxiety, and promote active participation in care through a process of shared decision-making.[1] By providing clear, evidence-based information, clinicians can help patients develop practical self-management skills, which are essential for navigating a chronic condition like spinal osteoarthritis. This approach moves beyond simple instruction and becomes a therapeutic tool, helping to shape a patient's understanding and behavioral responses to their symptoms.

Key educational messages, grounded in modern pain science, should include:

• Favorable prognosis: The generally benign and favorable nature of most low back pain episodes should be emphasized. A primary goal of patient education is to provide reassurance and counteract the often-alarming nature of spinal pain. Clinicians should emphasize that most new episodes of low back pain are self-limited and improve over time, regardless of the specific treatment.[27] This message helps to reduce fear and anxiety, which are known to be powerful drivers of pain and disability.[1] Explaining that the spine is a strong, robust structure that is designed for movement can help reframe a patient's perception of their back from something fragile and damaged to something resilient and adaptable. This positive framing is a key component of effective primary care for low back pain, which helps to prevent the adoption of unhelpful fear-avoidant behaviors that can lead to chronicity.

• Clinical and imaging discordance: The poor correlation between imaging findings and symptoms is essential to explain to patients, including that "wear and tear" is a normal part of aging and does not necessarily equal pain.[1] Many patients harbor the belief that degenerative changes seen on an x-ray or MRI are a direct and permanent cause of their pain. This belief can lead to increased fear, activity avoidance, and a demand for invasive treatments that may not be indicated. Clinicians should proactively address this by explaining that findings, eg, disc degeneration, bulges, and facet arthropathy, are prevalent in people who have no pain at all, and their prevalence increases with age. This information helps decouple the patient's identity from their imaging report, shifting the focus of management from "fixing" an image to improving function and quality of life. Patient education provides the necessary context for why a "wait and see" approach or a focus on active therapies is often more beneficial than pursuing immediate, aggressive interventions based solely on imaging.[32]

• Maintenance of physical activity: The critical importance of staying active and avoiding prolonged bed rest should be emphasized. Patients should be strongly encouraged to remain as active as their symptoms allow and to return to their usual activities, including work, as soon as possible. The recommendation to avoid prolonged bed rest is based on substantial evidence that inactivity is detrimental, leading to muscle deconditioning, increased stiffness, and worse long-term outcomes.[27] Education should focus on the concept of "hurt versus harm," explaining that experiencing some discomfort during activity is normal and does not indicate damage to the spine. Instead, movement and exercise are essential for nourishing the spinal joints, strengthening supporting muscles, and promoting the body's natural healing and pain-modulating processes, empowering patients to become active participants in their recovery rather than passive recipients of care.[34] 

• Self-management strategies: Providing concrete strategies is essential for long-term self-management. Effective education extends beyond simple advice, providing patients with practical tools for self-management and care, including guidance on appropriate exercise and weight control. A tailored exercise program that combines strengthening, flexibility, and aerobic conditioning is a cornerstone of management for reducing pain and improving function.[27] Clinicians can provide examples of safe and effective exercises or refer patients to physical therapy for more structured guidance and support. For patients who are overweight or obese, education on the dual benefits of weight loss—reducing both the mechanical load on the spine and the systemic inflammation associated with excess adipose tissue—is crucial. Providing resources for nutritional counseling or weight management programs can be a vital component of a comprehensive care plan.

• Realistic expectations: A key aspect of patient education is shifting the focus from the unrealistic goal of complete pain elimination to setting achievable goals of functional improvement and enhanced quality of life.[32] Patients should understand that spinal osteoarthritis is a chronic condition that may have periods of exacerbation and remission. The goal of management is not to "cure" the arthritis but to provide them with the skills and tools to manage their symptoms, maintain their ability to participate in meaningful activities, and live well despite the condition. This involves a collaborative goal-setting process, in which the patient identifies the activities most important to them, and the treatment plan is designed to help them achieve those goals. This approach of setting realistic expectations promotes a sense of control and self-efficacy, which are strongly linked to improved long-term outcomes in chronic pain conditions.[1]

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Spinal osteoarthritis is a prevalent cause of chronic low back and neck pain and a major contributor to disability and healthcare utilization. Degeneration of the spinal motion segment, including the intervertebral disc and facet joints, produces structural changes that do not consistently correlate with symptom severity. Contemporary understanding emphasizes a multifactorial, whole-joint process shaped by age, genetics, mechanical stress, metabolic factors, and low-grade inflammation. Because pain experience is influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors, optimal management extends beyond a purely biomedical model. Evidence-based care prioritizes patient education, exercise therapy, weight management, appropriate pharmacologic use, and selective interventional procedures, while reserving surgery for specific neurologic indications.[10]

Effective management requires coordinated interprofessional collaboration. Physicians and general practitioners lead initial assessment, exclude red flags, provide education, and guide stepped-care treatment while avoiding unnecessary imaging. Advanced practitioners and nurses reinforce self-management, monitor response, and promote adherence. Physical therapists design individualized exercise programs to restore function, and psychologists address fear avoidance and catastrophizing through cognitive behavioral strategies. Pharmacists enhance medication safety by counseling on NSAID risks, minimizing opioid exposure, and identifying drug interactions. Pain specialists perform diagnostic medial branch blocks and radiofrequency ablation when indicated, and surgeons evaluate refractory neurologic compromise. Shared decision-making, clear documentation, and structured communication through shared records and case discussions strengthen team performance, reduce complications, and improve patient-centered outcomes.[1][32]

Review Questions

• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Click here for a simplified version.
• Comment on this article.

References

1.

Knezevic NN, Candido KD, Vlaeyen JWS, Van Zundert J, Cohen SP. Low back pain. Lancet. 2021 Jul 03;398(10294):78-92. [PubMed: 34115979]

2.

Guy GP, Miller GF, Legha JK, Rikard SM, Strahan AE, Mikosz C, Florence CS. Economic Costs of Chronic Pain-United States, 2021. Med Care. 2025 Sep 01;63(9):679-685. [PMC free article: PMC13284907] [PubMed: 40730349]

3.

Dieleman JL, Cao J, Chapin A, Chen C, Li Z, Liu A, Horst C, Kaldjian A, Matyasz T, Scott KW, Bui AL, Campbell M, Duber HC, Dunn AC, Flaxman AD, Fitzmaurice C, Naghavi M, Sadat N, Shieh P, Squires E, Yeung K, Murray CJL. US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016. JAMA. 2020 Mar 03;323(9):863-884. [PMC free article: PMC7054840] [PubMed: 32125402]

4.

Chang D, Lui A, Matsoyan A, Safaee MM, Aryan H, Ames C. Comparative Review of the Socioeconomic Burden of Lower Back Pain in the United States and Globally. Neurospine. 2024 Jun;21(2):487-501. [PMC free article: PMC11224735] [PubMed: 38955526]

5.

Chen D, Shen J, Zhao W, Wang T, Han L, Hamilton JL, Im HJ. Osteoarthritis: toward a comprehensive understanding of pathological mechanism. Bone Res. 2017;5:16044. [PMC free article: PMC5240031] [PubMed: 28149655]

6.

Jarraya M, Guermazi A, Lorbergs AL, Brochin E, Kiel DP, Bouxsein ML, Cupples LA, Samelson EJ. A longitudinal study of disc height narrowing and facet joint osteoarthritis at the thoracic and lumbar spine, evaluated by computed tomography: the Framingham Study. Spine J. 2018 Nov;18(11):2065-2073. [PMC free article: PMC6195485] [PubMed: 29679729]

7.

Gellhorn AC, Katz JN, Suri P. Osteoarthritis of the spine: the facet joints. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013 Apr;9(4):216-24. [PMC free article: PMC4012322] [PubMed: 23147891]

8.

Goode AP, Carey TS, Jordan JM. Low back pain and lumbar spine osteoarthritis: how are they related? Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2013 Feb;15(2):305. [PMC free article: PMC3606549] [PubMed: 23307577]

9.

Berenbaum F. Osteoarthritis as an inflammatory disease (osteoarthritis is not osteoarthrosis!). Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 Jan;21(1):16-21. [PubMed: 23194896]

10.

Cohen SP, Bhaskar A, Bhatia A, Buvanendran A, Deer T, Garg S, Hooten WM, Hurley RW, Kennedy DJ, McLean BC, Moon JY, Narouze S, Pangarkar S, Provenzano DA, Rauck R, Sitzman BT, Smuck M, van Zundert J, Vorenkamp K, Wallace MS, Zhao Z. Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Jun;45(6):424-467. [PMC free article: PMC7362874] [PubMed: 32245841]

11.

Reynard LN, Loughlin J. The genetics and functional analysis of primary osteoarthritis susceptibility. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2013 Feb 18;15:e2. [PMC free article: PMC3575889] [PubMed: 23414786]

12.

Long H, Liu Q, Yin H, Wang K, Diao N, Zhang Y, Lin J, Guo A. Prevalence Trends of Site-Specific Osteoarthritis From 1990 to 2019: Findings From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022 Jul;74(7):1172-1183. [PMC free article: PMC9543105] [PubMed: 35233975]

13.

GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222. [PMC free article: PMC7567026] [PubMed: 33069326]

14.

GBD 2021 Low Back Pain Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990-2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 Jun;5(6):e316-e329. [PMC free article: PMC10234592] [PubMed: 37273833]

15.

GBD 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990-2020 and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 Sep;5(9):e508-e522. [PMC free article: PMC10477960] [PubMed: 37675071]

16.

Ravindra VM, Senglaub SS, Rattani A, Dewan MC, Härtl R, Bisson E, Park KB, Shrime MG. Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Estimating Global Incidence and Worldwide Volume. Global Spine J. 2018 Dec;8(8):784-794. [PMC free article: PMC6293435] [PubMed: 30560029]

17.

Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, Hoy D, Karppinen J, Pransky G, Sieper J, Smeets RJ, Underwood M., Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018 Jun 09;391(10137):2356-2367. [PubMed: 29573870]

18.

Fujiwara A, Tamai K, Yamato M, An HS, Yoshida H, Saotome K, Kurihashi A. The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(5):396-401. [PMC free article: PMC3611192] [PubMed: 10552323]

19.

Loeser RF, Goldring SR, Scanzello CR, Goldring MB. Osteoarthritis: a disease of the joint as an organ. Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Jun;64(6):1697-707. [PMC free article: PMC3366018] [PubMed: 22392533]

20.

Armon C, Narayanaswami P, Potrebic S, Gronseth G, Bačkonja MM, Cai VL, Dorman J, Gilligan C, Heller SA, Silsbee HM, Smith DB. Epidural Steroids for Cervical and Lumbar Radicular Pain and Spinal Stenosis Systematic Review Summary: Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee. Neurology. 2025 Mar 11;104(5):e213361. [PMC free article: PMC12289388] [PubMed: 39938000]

21.

Urits I, Burshtein A, Sharma M, Testa L, Gold PA, Orhurhu V, Viswanath O, Jones MR, Sidransky MA, Spektor B, Kaye AD. Low Back Pain, a Comprehensive Review: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2019 Mar 11;23(3):23. [PubMed: 30854609]

22.

Bogduk N, MacVicar J. Osteoarthritis of zygapophysial joints as a cause of back pain and neck pain: a scoping review. Pain Med. 2024 Sep 01;25(9):541-552. [PMC free article: PMC11369356] [PubMed: 38702827]

23.

Kim JH, Sharan A, Cho W, Emam M, Hagen M, Kim SY. The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Cervical and Lumbar Facet Arthropathy: A Computed Tomography Study. Asian Spine J. 2019 Jun;13(3):417-422. [PMC free article: PMC6547401] [PubMed: 30744307]

24.

Kalichman L, Li L, Kim DH, Guermazi A, Berkin V, O'Donnell CJ, Hoffmann U, Cole R, Hunter DJ. Facet joint osteoarthritis and low back pain in the community-based population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Nov 01;33(23):2560-5. [PMC free article: PMC3021980] [PubMed: 18923337]

25.

Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Boos N, Hodler J. MR imaging and CT in osteoarthritis of the lumbar facet joints. Skeletal Radiol. 1999 Apr;28(4):215-9. [PubMed: 10384992]

26.

Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Soin A, Albers SL, Beall D, Latchaw R, Sanapati MR, Shah S, Atluri S, Abd-Elsayed A, Abdi S, Aydin S, Bakshi S, Boswell MV, Buenaventura R, Cabaret J, Calodney AK, Candido KD, Christo PJ, Cintron L, Diwan S, Gharibo C, Grider J, Gupta M, Haney B, Harned ME, Helm Ii S, Jameson J, Jha S, Kaye AM, Knezevic NN, Kosanovic R, Manchikanti MV, Navani A, Racz G, Pampati V, Pasupuleti R, Philip C, Rajput K, Sehgal N, Sudarshan G, Vanaparthy R, Wargo BW, Hirsch JA. Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Facet Joint Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines Facet Joint Interventions 2020 Guidelines. Pain Physician. 2020 May;23(3S):S1-S127. [PubMed: 32503359]

27.

Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Denberg TD, Barry MJ, Boyd C, Chow RD, Fitterman N, Harris RP, Humphrey LL, Vijan S. Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 04;166(7):514-530. [PubMed: 28192789]

28.

Vance CG, Dailey DL, Rakel BA, Sluka KA. Using TENS for pain control: the state of the evidence. Pain Manag. 2014 May;4(3):197-209. [PMC free article: PMC4186747] [PubMed: 24953072]

29.

Traeger A, Buchbinder R, Harris I, Maher C. Diagnosis and management of low-back pain in primary care. CMAJ. 2017 Nov 13;189(45):E1386-E1395. [PMC free article: PMC5687927] [PubMed: 29133540]

30.

Janapala RN, Manchikanti L, Sanapati MR, Thota S, Abd-Elsayed A, Kaye AD, Hirsch JA. Efficacy of Radiofrequency Neurotomy in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Pain Res. 2021;14:2859-2891. [PMC free article: PMC8439627] [PubMed: 34531682]

31.

Sarzi-Puttini P, Atzeni F, Fumagalli M, Capsoni F, Carrabba M. Osteoarthritis of the spine. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Jun;34(6 Suppl 2):38-43. [PubMed: 16206956]

32.

Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, Ferreira PH, Fritz JM, Koes BW, Peul W, Turner JA, Maher CG., Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018 Jun 09;391(10137):2368-2383. [PubMed: 29573872]

33.

Bernstein IA, Malik Q, Carville S, Ward S. Low back pain and sciatica: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2017 Jan 06;356:i6748. [PubMed: 28062522]

34.

Gordon R, Bloxham S. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Exercise and Physical Activity on Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain. Healthcare (Basel). 2016 Apr 25;4(2) [PMC free article: PMC4934575] [PubMed: 27417610]

Disclosure: Konstantinos Margetis declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Catherine Roberts declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Eduardo Escobar declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.