Articles: low-back-pain.
-
J Spinal Disord Tech · Feb 2005
Comparative StudyRadiofrequency heating of painful annular disruptions: one-year outcomes.
Although several studies have reported on outcomes following heating of annular tears with a thermoresistive catheter (SpineCATH), no data are available on the efficacy of thermal treatment with a flexible radiofrequency electrode (discTRODE). A prospective case-control study was conducted to determine the efficacy of radiofrequency heating of painful annular tears in the lumbar spine. ⋯ Radiofrequency heating of annular tears can lead to an improvement in the pain of internal disc disruption. The improvement gained by this treatment method is significantly better than that obtained from conservative management.
-
Editorial Comment
The controversy over diagnosis and treatment of facet pain.
-
J Spinal Disord Tech · Feb 2005
Clinical TrialComputer-guided percutaneous interbody fixation and fusion of the L5-S1 disc: a 2-year prospective study.
The clinical outcomes of lumbar fusion are diminished by the complications associated with the surgical approach. Posterior approaches cause segmental muscular necrosis and anterior approaches risk visceral and vascular injury. This report details a two-year prospective study of a percutaneous method which avoids the major problems associated with existing approaches. ⋯ Percutaneous fusion of the lumbosacral spine appears safe and provides excellent clinical results with a minimal amount of associated tissue trauma.
-
Clinical Trial
Assessment of pain quality in chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain clinical trials with the Neuropathic Pain Scale.
Although a number of measures of pain qualities exist, little research has examined the potential for these measures to identify the unique effects of pain treatments on different pain qualities. We examined the utility of the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) for assessing changes in pain qualities after open label lidocaine patch 5% in 3 samples of patients: patients with peripheral neuropathic pain, low back pain, and osteoarthritis. With one exception ("cold" pain in subjects with low back pain), each of the NPS items showed significant change after open label lidocaine patch. In addition, significantly larger changes were observed for the NPS items reflecting global pain intensity and pain unpleasantness and for items assessing sharp and deep pain than for items assessing cold, sensitive, and itchy pain. The pattern of changes in pain qualities did not differ across the 3 diagnostic groups, but it did differ from the patterns of changes in pain qualities associated with other analgesic treatments. The results support the potential utility of the NPS for assessing the patterns of changes in pain qualities that can be observed after pain treatment. ⋯ Pain clinical trials that include measures of pain qualities, such as the NPS, might identify distinct patterns of treatment effects on those pain qualities. This research might be used to help clinicians target analgesics to match the specific qualities associated with a patient's pain and to better understand the mechanisms of analgesic effects in drug development programs.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomized clinical trial in acute low back pain.
The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately defined the terms 'mobilization' and 'manipulation', nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n = 80), interferential therapy (IFT; n = 80), and a combination of both (CT; n = 80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was defined as any 'mobilization' (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or 'manipulation' (high velocity thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax. ⋯ There was a significant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (chi2 = 9.178; df = 2; P = 0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n = 21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n = 7/74; df = 1; P = 0.003). The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may reflect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.