The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
-
Review
NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain.
Low back pain (LBP) continues to be a very prevalent, disabling, and costly spinal disorder. Numerous interventions are routinely used for symptoms of acute LBP. One of the most common approaches is spinal manipulation therapy (SMT). ⋯ Several RCTs have been conducted to assess the efficacy of SMT for acute LBP using various methods. Results from most studies suggest that 5 to 10 sessions of SMT administered over 2 to 4 weeks achieve equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. Spine care clinicians should discuss the role of SMT as a treatment option for patients with acute LBP who do not find adequate symptomatic relief with self-care and education alone.
-
Comparative Study
Comparative in-hospital morbidity and mortality after revision versus primary thoracic and lumbar spine fusion.
Despite increasing utilization of surgical spine fusions, a paucity of literature addressing perioperative complications after revision posterior spinal fusion (RPSF) versus primary posterior spine fusion (PPSF) of the thoracic and lumbar spine exists. ⋯ Despite being performed in generally younger and healthier patients and having lower perioperative morbidity, PPSF procedures are associated with increased mortality compared with RPSF procedures. The findings of this study can be used for risk stratification, accurate patient consultation, and hypothesis formation for future research.
-
Case Reports Multicenter Study
Utility of the anesthetic test dose to avoid catastrophic injury during cervical transforaminal epidural injections.
Reports of serious complications from cervical transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injections often consider accidental intra-arterial injection the most likely mechanism of injury. As a result, many physicians have instituted methods to prevent intravascular injections. Routine use of the anesthetic test dose is one such method. The utility of the anesthetic test dose in this function has not been characterized in the current literature. ⋯ The routine use of an anesthetic test dose appears to be safe and capable of detecting potentially dangerous intravascular injections undetected by conventional techniques. Positive responses occur in a small portion of those who receive the test dose injection. Further studies are required to determine the optimal dose and concentration of anesthetic to be used and the time required for observation after test dose administration.