Mr Big Discography Torrent 'LINK'

Discography is the study and cataloging of published sound recordings, often by specified artists or within identified music genres. The exact information included varies depending on the type and scope of the discography, but a discography entry for a specific recording will often list such details as the names of the artists involved, the time and place of the recording, the title of the piece performed, release dates, chart positions, and sales figures.[1]

A discography can also refer to the recordings catalogue of an individual artist, group, or orchestra. This is distinct from a sessionography, which is a catalogue of recording sessions, rather than a catalogue of the records, in whatever medium, that are made from those recordings. The two are sometimes confused, especially in jazz, as specific release dates for jazz records are often difficult to ascertain, and session dates are substituted as a means of organizing an artist's catalogue.

Mr Big Discography Torrent

Download Zip 🔥 https://tlniurl.com/2xZnz8 🔥

Another, more recent, definition of discography refers to a collection of musical recordings by a performer or composer, considered as a body of work. For instance, all studio albums by a performer could collectively be considered their discography.

The term "discography" was popularized in the 1930s by collectors of jazz records, i.e. 'to study and write about the discs of music'. Jazz fans did research and self-published discographies about when jazz records were made and what musicians were on the records, as record companies did not commonly include that information on or with the records at that time. Two early jazz discographies were Rhythm on Record by Hilton Schleman and Hot Discography by Charles Delaunay.[1][3]

A lumbar discogram, also called lumbar discography, is a minimally invasive, presurgical diagnostic test devised to determine if an intervertebral disc in the lower spine is the primary cause of back pain with or without leg pain (sciatica). 1 Peh W. Provocative discography: Current status. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2005;1(1):e2. DOI:10.2349/biij.1.1.e2 Available from:

The results of a discography test influence the surgical decision-making process and accurate selection of spinal levels for a lumbar spinal fusion surgery. 1 Peh W. Provocative discography: Current status. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2005;1(1):e2. DOI:10.2349/biij.1.1.e2 Available from: The test can also be performed in the neck (cervical discography) or upper back (thoracic discography) to analyze disc-related pain in those spinal segments.

A discogram may be recommended after several attempts of nonsurgical care have failed to provide relief from sciatica or back pain and before surgery is considered. 1 Peh W. Provocative discography: Current status. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2005;1(1):e2. DOI:10.2349/biij.1.1.e2 Available from: The test may be used to:

The presence of specific conditions or factors may not be favorable in performing a discography due to potential harm to the patient or failure to achieve the desired results. 1 Peh W. Provocative discography: Current status. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2005;1(1):e2. DOI:10.2349/biij.1.1.e2 Available from: These conditions or factors include but are not limited to:

As with most minimally invasive diagnostic tests, a lumbar discography is usually not performed in women with a suspected or confirmed pregnancy. 1 Peh W. Provocative discography: Current status. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2005;1(1):e2. DOI:10.2349/biij.1.1.e2 Available from:

A discogram includes disc puncture and pressurization. 3 Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD, Vaccaro A. Lumbar discography. The Spine Journal. 2003;3(3):11-27. doi.org/10.1016/s1529-9430(02)00563-6 A contrast agent is injected into the innermost core (nucleus pulposus) of the suspected disc and the resistance encountered during this injection is noted. 1 Peh W. Provocative discography: Current status. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2005;1(1):e2. DOI:10.2349/biij.1.1.e2 Available from:

Pain provocation during a discogram procedure occurs due to the stretching of the fibers within the disc, pressure on the sciatic nerve roots, and a change in pressure inside the disc. If possible, an adjacent normal disc may be injected as a reference or control to provide an indication of the patient's level of pain tolerance and the reliability of the patient's responses at the suspected disc level(s). 1 Peh W. Provocative discography: Current status. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2005;1(1):e2. DOI:10.2349/biij.1.1.e2 Available from:

Discography may be regarded as a controversial procedure by some researchers due to the rare probability of long-term side effects and complications. 6 Cuellar JM, Stauff MP, Herzog RJ, Carrino JA, Baker GA, Carragee EJ. Does provocative discography cause clinically important injury to the lumbar intervertebral disc? A 10-year matched cohort study. The Spine Journal. 2016;16(3):273-280. doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.06.051

The actual mechanism of pain provocation through disc pressurization is not fully understood.1 Despite these barriers, many medical professionals consider discography a valuable tool in the investigation of disc-related pain unresolved by MRI or CT scans and in patients for whom surgery is contemplated. Due to the possibility of potential complications, this diagnostic tool may not be a method of choice for several patients.

Study design: Prospective, match-cohort study of disc degeneration progression over 10 years with and without baseline discography. Objectives. To compare progression of common degenerative findings between lumbar discs injected 10 years earlier with those same disc levels in matched subjects not exposed to discography. Summary of Background Data. Experimental disc puncture in animal and in vivo studies have demonstrated accelerated disc degeneration. Whether intradiscal diagnostic or treatment procedures used in clinical practice causes any damage to the punctured discs over time is currently unknown.

Methods: Seventy-five subjects without serious low back pain illness underwent a protocol MRI and an L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 discography examination in 1997. A matched group was enrolled at the same time and underwent the same protocol MRI examination. Subjects were followed for 10 years. At 7 to 10 years after baseline assessment, eligible discography and controlled subjects underwent another protocol MRI examination. MRI graders, blind to group designation, scored both groups for qualitative findings (Pfirrmann grade, herniations, endplate changes, and high intensity zone). Loss of disc height and loss of disc signal were measured by quantitative methods.

Results: Well matched cohorts, including 50 discography subjects and 52 control subjects, were contacted and met eligibility criteria for follow-up evaluation. In all graded or measured parameters, discs that had been exposed to puncture and injection had greater progression of degenerative findings compared to control (noninjected) discs: progression of disc degeneration, 54 discs (35%) in the discography group compared to 21 (14%) in the control group (P = 0.03); 55 new disc herniations in the discography group compared to 22 in the control group (P = 0.0003). New disc herniations were disproportionately found on the side of the anular puncture (P = 0.0006). The quantitative measures of disc height and disc signal also showed significantly greater loss of disc height (P = 0.05) and signal intensity (P = 0.001) in the discography disc compared to the control disc.

Conclusion: Modern discography techniques using small gauge needle and limited pressurization resulted in accelerated disc degeneration, disc herniation, loss of disc height and signal and the development of reactive endplate changes compared to match-controls. Careful consideration of risk and benefit should be used in recommending procedures involving disc injection.

Background context: In a small prospective study assessing 10 symptomatic and 10 asymptomatic subjects, Schellhas et al. compared cervical discography to magnetic resonance imaging. Within that study he reported on the distribution of pain for the C3-C4 to C6-C7 levels. Four years later, Grubb and Ellis reported retrospective data from his 12-year experience using cervical discography from C2-C3 to C7-T1 in 173 patients. To date, no large prospective study defining pain referral patterns for each cervical disc has been performed.

Methods: Pain referral maps were generated for each disc level from patients undergoing cervical discography with at least two levels assessed. If concordant pain was reproduced in a morphologically abnormal disc, the subject immediately completed a pain diagram. An independent observer interviewed the subject and recorded the location of provoked symptoms. Visual data were compiled using a body sector bit map, which consisted of 48 clinically relevant body regions. Visual maps with graduated color codes and frequencies of symptom location at each cervical disc level were generated.

Results: A total of 101 symptom provocation maps were recorded during cervical discography on 41 subjects. There were 10 at C2-C3, 19 at C3-C4, 27 at C4-C5, 27 at C5-C6, 16 at C6-C7 and 2 at C7-T1. Predominantly unilateral symptoms were provoked just as often as bilateral symptoms. The C2-C3 disc referred pain to the neck, subocciput and face. The C3-C4 disc referred pain to the neck, subocciput, trapezius, anterior neck, face, shoulder, interscapular and limb. The C4-C5 disc referred pain to the neck, shoulder, interscapular, trapezius, extremity, face, chest and subocciput. The C5-C6 disc referred pain to the neck, trapezius, interscapular, suboccipital, anterior neck, chest and face. The C6-C7 disc referred pain to the neck, interscapular, trapezius, shoulder, extremity and subocciput. At C7-T1 we produced neck and interscapular pain. Visual maps with graduated color codes and frequencies of symptom location at each cervical disc level were generated. be457b7860