Treatment Of Chronic Spinal Pain Research Articles

Evaluating the efficacy of wearable biofeedback on the outcomes of exercise interventions in people with chronic non-specific spinal pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionWearable neuromuscular and biomechanical biofeedback technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes by facilitating exercise interventions. We will conduct a systematic review to examine whether the addition of wearable...

439 Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator for Treatment of Chronic Spinal Pain

INTRODUCTION: The percutaneous electrical nerve stimulator (PENS) is a relatively new device for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. This programmable device is worn for a recommended 10 to 12 days on the external ear, stimulating the auricular vagus nerve. It is postulated to release endorphins and relieve pain. There is minimal literature on the use of PENS as an adjunct to pain management in patients with chronic spinal pain. METHODS: Patients who had the PENS placed for chronic refractory spinal pain were included in the study. All patients failed multiple forms of treatment such as physical therapy, epidural steroid injections, and medication. RESULTS: In 2021, 114 patients had the PENS placed. The mean patient follow-up was 34.9 weeks. 67 patients (58.7%) felt pain relief due to the PENS. In patients with neck pain, the mean Neck Disability Index scores decreased from 43.8% to 25.4%, and the mean Numerical Rating Scores (NRS) decreased from 7.9 to 3.9. In patients with low back pain, the mean Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased from 47.6% to 33.5%, and the mean NRS scores decreased from 7.9 to 5.1. The rate of improvement in patients with neck pain (71.9%) was significantly greater (p-value <0.02) than in patients with back pain (56.4%). Interestingly, 33.3% of patients who responded to treatment remained improved at one year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that a significant number of patients experienced reduced pain and disability as a result of treatment with the PENS. Patients with neck pain responded better than patients with low back pain. Many patients in this difficult patient population experienced durable relief, lasting over one year. Our study suggests that the PENS may be a useful adjunct in the management of patients with chronic spinal pain.

EFFICACY OF EPIDURAL STEROID INJECTION IN LUMBOSACRAL RADICULOPATHY

Epidural injections with or without steroids are used extensively in the management of chronic spinal pain. However, evidence is contradictory with continuing debate about the value of epidural steroid injections in chronic spinal syndromes. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections in the treatment of chronic spinal pain.

Chinese Association for the Study of Pain: Experts consensus on ultrasound-guided injections for the treatment of spinal pain in China (2020 edition).

Spinal pain (SP) is a common condition that has a major negative impact on a patient’s quality of life. Recent developments in ultrasound-guided injections for the treatment of SP are increasingly being used in clinical practice. This clinical expert consensus describes the purpose, significance, implementation methods, indications, contraindications, and techniques of ultrasound-guided injections. This consensus offers a practical reference point for physicians to implement successfully ultrasound-guided injections in the treatment of chronic SP.

Psychomotor therapy as a treatment of chronic spinal pain: A qualitative study

ObjectivePsychomotor therapy is an innovative complementary approach that enhances the mind-body connection. It could have a positive effect on chronic pain syndromes but has not yet been specifically studied for spinal pain. We thus aimed to explore the experiences of chronic spinal pain patients with psychomotor therapy. DesignWe conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. 17 patients with chronic spinal pain were recruited from a multidisciplinary spinal pain program in a rehabilitation hospital in Switzerland. Participants received psychomotor therapy as part of this care. All interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was performed. SettingDivision of General Medical Rehabilitation, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. ResultsFour themes emerged from thematic analysis: 1) Connecting body and mind; 2) Passive individualized care; 3) Effect on mobility and well-being versus pain; and 4) Need for further care. Participants particularly appreciated the person-centered approach, relaxation and link between body and mind in the psychomotor therapy sessions. They shared positive effects of psychomotor therapy on mobility, kinesiophobia and overall well-being, rather than on pain. Finally, they would have liked more follow-up care at the end of the program. ConclusionsExperiences reported by patients in this study suggest that psychomotor therapy could be a promising complementary therapy for chronic spinal pain within a biopsychosocial approach. To better understand the benefits of psychomotor therapy for chronic spinal pain, further research is needed and should consider patient-reported outcome measures such as well-being, fear-avoidance belief and disability.

Can Acupuncture Improve Chronic Spinal Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Study Design:Systematic review and meta-analysis.Objective:To investigate the effect and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic spinal pain.Methods:MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, the WHO Clinical Trial Registry, and the US National Library of Medicine clinical trial registry were searched from January 1, 2000, to November 1, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with chronic spinal pain treated by acupuncture versus sham acupuncture, no treatment, or another treatment were included.Results:Data was extracted from 22 RCTs including 2588 patients. Pooled analysis revealed that acupuncture can reduce chronic spinal pain compared to sham acupuncture (weighted mean difference [WMD] −12.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] −15.86 to −8.24), mediation control (WMD −18.27, 95% CI −28.18 to −8.37), usual care control (WMD −9.57, 95% CI −13.48 to −9.44), and no treatment control (WMD −17.10, 95% CI −24.83 to −9.37). In terms of functional disability, acupuncture can improve physical function at immediate-term follow-up (standardized mean difference [SMD] −1.74, 95% CI −2.04 to −1.44), short-term follow-up (SMD −0.89, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.62), and long-term follow-up (SMD −1.25, 95% CI −1.48 to −1.03).Conclusion:In summary, compared to no treatment, sham acupuncture, or conventional therapy such as medication, massage, and physical exercise, acupuncture has a significantly superior effect on the reduction in chronic spinal pain and function improvement. Acupuncture might be an effective treatment for patients with chronic spinal pain and it is a safe therapy.

Do Corticosteroids Still Have a Place in the Treatment of Chronic Pain?

Corticosteroids have played a standard role in the multimodal pain management in the treatment of chronic spinal pain (cervical and lumbar) and osteoarthritis pain over the past three decades. In this review we discuss different types of injectable steroids that are mainly used for injection into the epidural space (for the treatment of radicular back and neck pain), and as intra-articular injections for different types of osteoarthritis related pain conditions. Furthermore, we discuss different approaches taken for epidural corticosteroid injections and spinal surgical rates when injections fail to resolve painful conditions, as well as the possibility of using local anesthetics alone for neuraxial injections, instead of in combination with corticosteroids. While we present some beneficial effects of newly available treatment options for low back pain and osteoarthritis pain, such as use of PRP and hyaluronic acid, corticosteroids remain important considerations in the management of these chronic pain conditions.

A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of Effectiveness of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: The therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate. Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methods: The available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM – QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM – QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake consumption. Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections. Conclusion: Based on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy. Key Words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain, chronic thoracic pain, intraarticular facet joint blocks, facet joint nerve blocks, conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, pulsed radiofrequency neurolysis

An Update of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part II: Guidance and Recommendations

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature. Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. Anticoagulation • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There islimited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Conclusion: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

Spinal Injections for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Spinal Pain

Spinal Injections for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Spinal Pain

Comprehensive Review of Therapeutic Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

Available evidence documents a wide degree of variance in the definition and practice of interventional pain management. To provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Best evidence synthesis. Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months, except < or = one year and > one year for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, and intrathecal infusion systems. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level I to II-1 for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain (Level II-1); for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The limitations of this guideline preparation included a paucity of literature, lack of updates, and lack of conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is variable from Level I to III. This comprehensive review includes the evaluation of evidence for therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations. However, this review and recommendations do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations or "standard of care."

Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Design: Systematic assessment of the literature. Methods: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Outcomes: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and longterm relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. Results: The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain; for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. Conclusion: The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic inverventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

Interventions for low back pain: What does the evidence tell us?

Although interventional therapy for chronic spinal pain continues to be popular among patients and providers, the scientific evidence supporting these techniques has lagged behind their presence in the market. This article collates both classic and more recent experimental results involved in the interventional assessment and treatment of chronic spinal pain, and presents key findings for physicians. Although much of the body of evidence is either unsupportive or inconclusive, there are some definitive findings involving each technique that can help shape rational practice. As interventional pain medicine seeks to become a more validated specialty, introspection and advancing science will be key to this development.

Interventional Techniques: Evidence-based Practice Guidelines in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: The evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of chronic spinal pain with interventional techniques were developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in the United States. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain, utilizing all types of evidence and to apply an evidence-based approach, with broad representation by specialists from academic and clinical practices. Design: Study design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. Methods: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). Results: Among the diagnostic interventions, the accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks is strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it is moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence is strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence is limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies is moderate. The evidence for diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is limited. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections is moderate for short-term and long-term improvement, whereas, it is limited for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks is moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy is moderate. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence is moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it is moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited in managing pain secondary to lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence is limited. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy is moderate in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas for annuloplasty the evidence is limited. Among the various techniques utilized for percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is moderate for short-term and limited for long-term relief for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, and percutaneous laser discectomy, whereas it is limited for nucleoplasty and for DeKompressor technology. For vertebral augmentation procedures, the evidence is moderate for both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome is strong for shortterm relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. Conclusion: These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines also do not represent a “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques, chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

Chiropractic management of musculoskeletal pain in the multiple sclerosis patient

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common disabling disease. Five to 10% of MS patients will enter a long-term care facility. The majority of MS patients suffer from some type of pain syndrome. Pain syndromes in MS can be divided into three categories: acute; subacute or paroxysmal and chronic. Chronic pain syndromes have been anecdotally reported to respond to mechanical treatments. Chiropractic care has shown efficacy in the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Chiropractic care may represent a viable treatment option for the MS patient suffering from chronic pain syndromes. Chiropractic care has been successfully integrated into a chronic care facility which is affiliated with a private university medical school. Chiropractic has been utilized in this setting for pain management of MS patients suffering from chronic pain syndromes. Preliminary findings from this clinic suggest that chiropractic may represent one treatment alternative for chronic pain in MS patients in a long-term care facility. Further studies will be needed to definitively determine the efficacy of chiropractic for the management of chronic pain in the MS patient.

Epidural Steroids in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain and Radiculopathy

Epidural injections with or without steroids are used extensively in the man- agement of chronic spinal pain. However, evidence is contradictory with continuing de- bate about the value of epidural steroid in- jections in chronic spinal syndromes. The objective of this systematic re- view is to determine the effectiveness of epi- dural injections in the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Data sources include relevant literature identified through searchs of MED - LINE, EMBASE (Jan 1966- Mar 2003), manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and abstracts from sci- entific meetings. Both randomized and non- randomized studies were included in the re- view based on the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Studies were excluded from the anal- ysis if they were simply review or descriptive and failed to meet minimum criteria. The results showed that there was strong evidence to indicate effectiveness of transforaminal epidural injections in manag- ing lumbar nerve root pain. Further, evidence was moderate for caudal epidural injections in managing lumbar radicular pain. The ev- idence in management of chronic neck pain, chronic low back pain, cervical radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, and post laminectomy syn- drome was limited or inconclusive. In conclusion, the evidence of effective- ness of transforaminal epidural injections in managing lumbar nerve root pain was strong, whereas, effectiveness of caudal epidural in- jections in managing lumbar radiculopathy was moderate, while there was limited or in- conclusive evidence of effectiveness of epi- dural injections in managing chronic spinal pain without radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, and cer- vical radiculopathy.

Chronic Spinal Pain

Study Design. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted. Objective. To compare medication, needle acupuncture, and spinal manipulation for managing chronic (>13 weeks duration) spinal pain because the value of medicinal and popular forms of alternative care for chronic spinal pain syndromes is uncertain. Summary of Background Data. Between February 1999 and October 2001, 115 patients without contraindication for the three treatment regimens were enrolled at the public hospital’s multidisciplinary spinal pain unit. Methods. One of three separate intervention protocols was used: medication, needle acupuncture, or chiropractic spinal manipulation. Patients were assessed before treatment by a sports medical physician for exclusion criteria and by a research assistant using the Oswestry Back Pain Disability Index (Oswestry), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Short-Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36), visual analog scales (VAS) of pain intensity and ranges of movement. These instruments were administered again at 2, 5, and 9 weeks after the beginning of treatment. Results. Randomization proved to be successful. The highest proportion of early (asymptomatic status) recovery was found for manipulation (27.3%), followed by acupuncture (9.4%) and medication (5%). Manipulation achieved the best overall results, with improvements of 50% (P = 0.01) on the Oswestry scale, 38% (P = 0.08) on the NDI, 47% (P < 0.001) on the SF-36, and 50% (P < 0.01) on the VAS for back pain, 38% (P < 0.001) for lumbar standing flexion, 20% (P < 0.001) for lumbar sitting flexion, 25% (P = 0.1) for cervical sitting flexion, and 18% (P = 0.02) for cervical sitting extension. However, on the VAS for neck pain, acupuncture showed a better result than manipulation (50%vs 42%). Conclusions. The consistency of the results provides, despite some discussed shortcomings of this study, evidence that in patients with chronic spinal pain, manipulation, if not contraindicated, results in greater short-term improvement than acupuncture or medication. However, the data do not strongly support the use of only manipulation, only acupuncture, or only nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. The results from this exploratory study need confirmation from future larger studies.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes for aggressive spine rehabilitation delivered two versus three times per week

Background context: Rehabilitation services using intensive exercise for the treatment of chronic spinal pain have traditionally been scheduled at a frequency of three times per week. Purpose: In an attempt to reduce the cost of rehabilitation services, this study was designed to determine whether treatment offered two times per week could produce similar outcomes when compared with an established three times per week spine therapy program. Study design: Prospective cohort study. Patient sample: Seventy-seven consecutive patients with chronic spinal pain were treated with aggressive spine rehabilitation either two or three times per week. Outcome measures: Flexibility, trunk strength and lifting capacity were quantified before and after treatment. Pain visual analog scores and Oswestry disability scores were measured before and after treatment, as well as 12 months after treatment. Methods: A two times per week physical therapy program was developed to be identical in its treatment method to an established three times per week, group-oriented physical therapy program used for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Patients with spinal pain who continued to work despite chronic pain complaints were allowed to choose between the two therapy programs based on availability of treatment slots and convenience. Treatment consisted of non–pain contingent quota-based exercises targeting identified physical impairments. Treatment sessions lasted for 2 hours and consisted of 30 minutes of stretching, 30 minutes of low-impact step aerobics class and 1 hour of exercise on strength and endurance equipment. Therapy occurred in groups consisting of a maximum of eight patients who were closely supervised by two therapists. Targeted treatment time was 6 weeks. At 12 months after treatment, subjects were surveyed by mailed questionnaires. Results: Seventy-seven patients with chronic spinal pain with a mean duration of symptoms of 32 months underwent treatment. Twenty-four subjects opted for the twice per week and 53 opted for the three times per week treatment. Seventy-one percent of subjects responded to the 12-month follow-up questionnaire. Physical and self-reported measures improved with both treatment frequencies. There were no differences in outcomes between treatment frequencies for measured flexibility, trunk strength, lifting capacity, pain intensity scores or Oswestry scores at the completion of treatment. At 12-month follow-up, no differences were noted between treatment frequencies for pain scores, Oswestry scores, patients' perceptions of adequacy of treatment, posttreatment exercise compliance or use of other treatments for their spinal problem. Total therapy visits were less in the two than three times per week groups (12 vs.15 visits). Conclusion: Similar outcomes were obtained from aggressive spine rehabilitation occurring two versus three times per week in patients presenting with moderate levels of chronic spinal pain. Reduction in physical therapy services and therefore cost did not adversely affect clinical outcomes in the treatment of this patient population.

Radiofrequency lesioning and chronic spinal pain: A review of current concepts

Abstract Data on the efficacy of radiofrequency lesioning of dorsal root ganglia in the treatment of chronic spinal pain are contradictory. Following a review of the available clinical trials, we will discuss physical effects of radiofrequency and hyperthermia, pathophysiological mechanisms associated with radiofrequency and hyperthermia, mechanisms of hyperthermic cell modulation and cell killing, and a possible parallel of radiofrequency lesioning of dorsal root ganglia with lesioning of the trigeminal ganglion. Next, various hypotheses on the mode of action of radiofrequency lesioning are critically reviewed. Finally, a model is presented based on recent advances in hyperthermia, molecular biology and neurobiology, which improves our insight into the impact of heat on a dorsal root ganglion. Radiofrequency lesioning of a dorsal root ganglion is followed by: (i) direct heat damage of axons and perikarya in a small central necrotic area; (ii) ischemia in a surrounding zone by damage to vascular endotheli...

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes from aggressive spine rehabilitation delivered two versus three times per week

James Rainville, MD, Cristin Jouve, MD, Carol Hartigan, MD, Eugenio Martinez, MD, Boston, MA, USAPurpose: Traditionally, rehabilitation services using exercise as the primary modality for treatment of chronic spinal pain have been scheduled at a frequency of three times per week. Efficacy of this treatment frequency has been established. In an attempt to reduce cost of rehabilitation services, the need for the three times per week treatment frequency was questioned. This study was designed to determine whether treatment two times per week could produce similar outcomes compared with those noted from three times per week programs.Methods: A two times per week physical therapy program was developed that was structured identically to an established three times per week, group-oriented, physical therapy program used for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Two time slots were available for the three times per week programs, one in the early morning and a second in the early evening. The two times per week program was available in the early morning only. These times were chosen to avoid time conflicts with patients' work schedules. Patients with chronic low back pain, a moderate level of disability (but currently working) and impairments in trunk flexibility and strength were allowed to choose between the spine rehabilitation programs based on availability of treatment slots and convenience. Treatments consisted of quota-based exercise targeting identified impairments in back flexibility, strength and lifting capacity. These were quantified before and after treatment using validated methods. Treatment sessions lasted for 2 hours, consisted of a maximum of eight patients and were closely supervised by two therapists. Targeted treatment time was 6 weeks. Oswestry Disability scales and pain visual analog scales were completed before and after participation in the treatment programs. At 12 months after treatment, subjects were surveyed by mailed questionnaires.Results: Seventy-seven subjects received treatment during the study period. Forty-two percent of subjects were men, and mean duration of symptoms was 32 months. Twenty-four subjects opted for the twice per week and 53 opted for the three times per week treatment. The twice per week subjects were slightly older (45 versus 40 years, t 2.1, p=.04). Otherwise, characteristics between groups were similar. Seventy percent of subjects responded to the 12-month follow-up questionnaire. Physical and self-report measures improved with both treatment frequencies, and all reach statistical significance of p>.001. There were no differences in outcomes between treatment frequencies for measured flexibility, strength, lifting capacity, Oswestry scores or pain intensity scores at the completion of treatment. At 12 months follow-up, no differences were noted between treatment frequencies for Oswestry scores, pain scores and patients' perceptions of adequacy of treatment, posttreatment exercise compliance, or use of other treatments for their spinal problem. Mean treatment time was similar (6 weeks), but total therapy visits were less in those treated twice per week (12 versus 15 visits, p>.001).Discussion: Similar results were obtained from spine rehabilitation occurring two versus three times per week for improvements in impairments in back flexibility and strength, as well as chronic pain and disability. These results challenge the convention of prescribing exercise-oriented physical therapy three times per week for this group of chronic spinal pain patients. Subsequently, the three times per week treatment programs for this patient population have been abandoned. Since this change, 229 patients have undergone the two times per week therapy program and have obtained clinical results that are similar to those noted above. Now the average number of therapy sessions is 10, representing a one-third reduction of therapy services and therefore cost.