scholarly journals Epidural triamcinolone for management of low back pain with radiation- a comparative study of two dose regime

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-18
Author(s):  
Md Mustafa Kamal ◽  
Abdullah Al Maruf ◽  
Md Shahadat Hossain ◽  
Md Abdus Samad ◽  
Md Hasanuzzaman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Significant Rise ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acceptable Method

Background: Low back pain is a very common specially in elderly people. Relief of pain is associated with decrease in morbidity, shorten hospital stay and increase patients’ satisfaction. Nerve block by epidural steroid and local anaesthetic is an acceptable method to reduce low back pain. Aim and objective: The present study was performed to compare low dose (40 mg) and high dose (80 mg) Triamcinolone to see their effectiveness and side effects in controlling low back pain. Method: This study was a randomized controlled trial. 60 patients with low back pain with radiation, and with positive CT/MRI support has been randomly selected by blind envelop method and divided into two groups, 30 patients in each. Group-A, patients received inj. Triamcinolone (40 mg) and Group-B patients received inj. Triamcinolone (80 mg) epidurally. Results: Both dosage produced effective analgesia in low back pain as assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS) for the period up to 30 days after administration. Haemodynamic changes showed no significant difference between the two drugs after 30 days. Both drugs produced significant rise of fasting plasma glucose and leucocytosis for the period up to 30 days after administration. Conclusion: Low back pain can be effectively reduced by epidural low dose Triamcinolone (40 mg). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/jbsa.v23i1.18153 Journal of BSA, 2010; 23(1): 14-18

scholarly journals Low-Dose Laser Acupuncture for Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Double-Blind Randomised Controlled Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Glazov ◽  
Michael Yelland ◽  
Jon Emery
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Laser Acupuncture ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Objective To determine if infrared laser acupuncture (LA) may have a specific effect in reducing pain and disability in treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP). Methods This was a double-blind sham laser controlled trial performed in general practices in Perth, Western Australia. The participants were 144 adults with chronic non-specific LBP. They were randomised to receive eight once-weekly treatments. Laser machines (20 mW, 840 nm diode, power density 0.1 W/cm2) stimulated points in three treatment groups: sham (0 joules/point), low dose (0.2 J/point) and high dose (0.8 joules/point). Participants were followed-up at 1 and 6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months post treatment. Primary outcomes were pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)) and disability (Oswestry Disability Inventory (ODI)) at 6 weeks post treatment. Secondary outcomes included numerical rating scale for limitation of activity, global assessment of improvement, analgesic usage and adverse effects after treatment. Results The analysis showed no difference between sham and the laser groups at 6 weeks for pain or disability. There was a significant reduction in mean pain and disability in all groups at 6 weeks (p<0.005); NPRS: sham (−1.5 (95% CI −2.1 to −0.8)), low dose (−1.3 (−2.0 to −0.8)), high dose (−1.1 (−1.7 to −0.5)). ODI: sham (−4.0 (−7.1 to −1.0)), low dose (−4.1, (−6.7 to −1.5)), high dose (−2.6 (−5.7 to 0.5)). All secondary outcomes also showed clinical improvement over time but with no differences between groups. Conclusions LA using energy density range (0–4 J/cm2) for the treatment of chronic non-specific LBP resulted in clinical improvement unrelated to laser stimulation. Trial Registration http://www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12610000043033.

scholarly journals Association of Serum Serotonin and Pain in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain before and after Spinal Surgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afshin Farhanchi ◽  
Behrouz Karkhanei ◽  
Negar Amani ◽  
Mashhood Aghajanloo ◽  
Elham Khanlarzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Postoperative Serum ◽  
Serum Serotonin

Introduction. In this study we are aiming to evaluate the changes of serum serotonin and its association with pain in patients suffering from chronic low back pain before and after lumbar discectomy surgery. Patients and Methods. A prospective study was performed on the patients referring to the outpatient clinic in Besat hospital, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, during 2016. A 2 mL fasting blood sample was collected from each patient at preoperative day 1 and postoperative day 14 and they were measured for level of serum serotonin. Besides, all patients were asked for severity of their low back pain in preoperative day 1 and postoperative day 14 and scored their pain from zero to ten using a Numerical Rating Scale. Results. Forty patients with the mean age of 47 ± 13 yrs/old (range 25–77) including 15 (37.5%) males were enrolled into the study. The overall mean score of preoperative pain was significantly decreased from 7.4 ± 2.18 (range 4–10) to the postoperative pain score 3.87 ± 2.92 (range 0–10) (P < .001). The overall levels of pre- and postoperative serum serotonin were 3.37 ± 1.27 (range 1.1–6.4) and 3.58 ± 1.32 (range .94–7.1) ng/mL, respectively, with no significant difference (P = .09). The levels of pre- and postoperative serum serotonin were significantly higher in males and patients older than 50 yrs/old compared to the females and patients younger than 50 yrs/old, respectively (P = .03 and .005, respectively). A significant inverse correlation between the postoperative levels of pain and serum serotonin was observed (r = -.36 and P = .02). Conclusion. A negative medium strength linear relationship may exist between the postoperative serum serotonin and low back pain.

scholarly journals Pharmacological and toxicological profile of opioid-treated, chronic low back pain patients entering a mindfulness intervention randomized controlled trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Zgierska, MD, PhD ◽  
Margaret L. Wallace, PharmD, BCACP ◽  
Cindy A. Burzinski, MS ◽  
Jennifer Cox, BS ◽  
Miroslav Backonja, MD
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Illicit Drugs ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Toxicological Profile

Objective: Refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP) often leads to treatment with long-term opioids. Our goal was to describe the pharmaco-toxicological profile of opioid-treated CLBP patients and identify potential areas for care optimization.Design: Cross-sectional analysis.Setting: Outpatient primary care.Participants: CLBP patients prescribed ≥ 30 mg/d of morphine-equivalent dose (MED) for ≥3 months.Outcome Measures: Self-reported clinical, medication (verified) and substance use, and urine drug testing (UDT) data were collected.Results: Participants (N = 35) were 51.8 ± 9.7 years old, 80 percent female with CLBP for 14.2 ± 10.1 years, treated with opioids for 7.9 ± 5.7 years, with severe disability (Oswestry Disability Index score: 66.7 ± 11.4), and average pain score of 5.6 ± 1.5 (0-10 rating scale). Participants reported using tobacco (N = 14), alcohol (N = 9) and illicit drugs or unprescribed medications (N = 10). On average, participants took 13.4 ± 6.8 daily medications, including 4.7 ± 1.8 pain-modulating and 4.7 ± 2.0 sedating medications. Among prescribed opioids, 57.1 percent were long-acting and 91.4 percent were short-acting, with a total of 144.5 ± 127.8 mg/d of MED. Sixteen participants were prescribed benzodiazepines and/or zolpidem/zaleplon. Fifteen participants had UDT positive for illicit drugs or unprescribed medications; in addition, eight tested positive for alcohol and 19 for cotinine. Compared to those with negative UDTs, those with positive UDTs (N = 15) received lower daily “total” and “extended release” opioid doses, and were more likely to test positive for cotinine (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Study findings corroborate existing evidence for high medication burden and high likelihood of substance misuse among opioid-treated CLBP patients. Further research is needed to help understand causality and ways to optimize care and clinical outcomes.

Effectiveness of Simulated Horseback Riding for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
TaeYeong Kim ◽  
JaeHyuk Lee ◽  
SeJun Oh ◽  
Seungmin Kim ◽  
BumChul Yoon
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Oswestry Disability Index ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Numeric Rating Scale ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Baseline Values ◽  
Numeric Rating

Context: A simulated horseback riding (SHR) exercise is effective for improvement of pain and functional disability, but its comparative effectiveness with the other is unknown. Objective: The authors aimed to demonstrate the effect of a SHR exercise in people with chronic low back pain. Design: A randomized controlled trial. Settings: Community and university campus. Participants: A total of 48 participants with chronic low back pain were divided into 2 groups, and SHR exercises (n = 24) or stabilization (STB) exercises (n = 24) were performed. Interventions: The exercises were performed for 30 minutes, 2 days per week for 8 weeks. Main Outcome Measures: Numeric rating scale, functional disabilities (Oswestry disability index and Roland–Morris disability), and fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) scores were measured at baseline and at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months. Results: A 2-way repeated analysis of variance identified that between-group comparisons showed significant differences in the FABQ related to work scale (F = 21.422; P = .01). There were no significant differences in the numeric rating scale (F = 1.696; P = .21), Oswestry disability index (F = 1.848; P = .20), Roland–Morris disability (F = 0.069; P = .80), and FABQ related to physical scale (F = 1.579; P = .24). In within-group comparisons, both groups presented significant differences in numeric rating scale (both SHR and STB after 4 wk), Oswestry disability index (both SHR and STB after 6 mo), and Roland–Morris disability (SHR after 6 mo and STB after 8 wk) compared with baseline values. In FABQ-related physical (SHR after 4 wk) and work scales (SHR after 6 mo), there were only significant differences in the SHR compared with baseline values. Conclusions: SHR exercise for 8 weeks had a greater effect than STB exercise for reducing work-related FABQ. The SHR exercise performed in a seated position could substantially decrease pain-related fear disability in young adults with chronic low back pain.

scholarly journals A randomised controlled trial of ‘clockwise’ ultrasound for low back pain

2016 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriaan Louw ◽  
Kory Zimney ◽  
Merrill R. Landers ◽  
Mark Luttrell ◽  
Bob Clair ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Numeric Rating Scale ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Flexion ◽  
Experimental Group

Aims: To examine how the choice of words explaining ultrasound (US) may influence the outcome of physiotherapy treatment for low back pain (LBP).Methods: Sixty-seven patients with LBP < 3 months were randomly allocated to one of three groups – traditional education about US (control group [CG]), inflated education about US (experimental group [EG]) or extra-inflated education about US (extra-experimental group [EEG]). Each patient received the exact same application of US that has shown clinical efficacy for LBP (1.5 Watts/cm2 for 10 minutes at 1 Megahertz, pulsed 20% over a 20 cm2 area), but received different explanations (CG, EG or EEG). Before and immediately after US,measurements of LBP and leg pain (numeric rating scale), lumbar flexion (distance to floor) and straight leg raise (SLR) (inclinometer) were taken. Statistical analysis consisted of mixed-factorial analyses of variance and chi-square analyses to measure differences between the three groups, as well as meeting or exceeding minimal detectable changes (MDCs) for pain, lumbar flexion and SLR.Results: Both EG and EEG groups showed a statistically significant improvement for SLR (p < 0.0001), while the CG did not. The EEG group participants were 4.4 times (95% confidence interval: 1.1 to 17.5) more likely to improve beyond the MDC than the CG. No significant differences were found between the groups for LBP, leg pain or lumbar flexion.Conclusion: The choice of words when applying a treatment in physiotherapy can alter the efficacy of the treatment.

scholarly journals Use of a goal setting intervention to increase adherence to low back pain rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (11) ◽  
pp. 1032-1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell J Coppack ◽  
Jakob Kristensen ◽  
Costas I Karageorghis
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Goal Setting ◽  
Treatment Efficacy ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Experimental Group

Objective: To examine the effects of a goal setting intervention on self-efficacy, treatment efficacy, adherence and treatment outcome in patients undergoing low back pain rehabilitation. Design: A mixed-model 2 (time) × 3 (group) randomized controlled trial. Setting: A residential rehabilitation centre for military personnel. Subjects: UK military personnel volunteers ( N = 48); mean age was 32.9 (SD 7.9) with a diagnosis of non-specific low back pain. Interventions: Subjects were randomly assigned to either a goal setting experimental group (Exp, n = 16), therapist-led exercise therapy group (C1, n = 16) or non-therapist-led exercise therapy group (C2, n = 16). Treatment duration for all groups was three weeks. Main measures: Self-efficacy, treatment efficacy and treatment outcome were recorded before and after the treatment period. Adherence was rated during regularly scheduled treatment sessions using the Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale (SIRAS). The Biering-Sørensen test was used as the primary measure of treatment outcome. Results: ANCOVA results showed that adherence scores were significantly higher in the experimental group (13.70 ± 1.58) compared with C2 (11.74 ± 1.35), ( P < 0.025). There was no significant difference for adherence between the experimental group and C1 ( P = 0.13). Self-efficacy was significantly higher in the experimental group compared to both C1 and C2 ( P < 0.05), whereas no significant difference was found for treatment efficacy. Treatment outcome did not differ significantly between the experimental and two control groups. Conclusions: The findings provide partial support for the use of goal setting to enhance adherence in clinical rehabilitation.

scholarly journals Efficacy of electroacupuncture in patients with failed back surgery syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoping Sheng ◽  
Hongyu Yue ◽  
Qi Zhang ◽  
Deta Chen ◽  
Weidong Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Failed Back Surgery Syndrome ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Failed Back Surgery ◽  
Back Surgery

Abstract Background Persistent pain following back surgery called failed back surgery syndrome remains a major treatment challenge. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture on relieving back pain in FBSS patients. Methods/design This is a randomized, single-blind, single-site, placebo-controlled trial. A total of 144 eligible FBSS patients will be randomly assigned to the electroacupuncture, manual acupuncture, or sham acupuncture group in a 1:1:1 ratio. Each group will receive 2 treatment sessions per week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome will be low back pain intensity based on the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes include Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and analgesic consumption. All clinical outcomes will be collected at baseline, during the treatment phase (at 8 and 12 weeks), and at the 16-, 24- and 36-week follow-ups. All data will be analyzed based on the intention-to-treat principle and adverse events will be assessed during the trial. Discussion This pilot randomized controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy of electroacupuncture for treating failed back surgery syndrome. The outcomes will determine whether electroacupuncture is efficacious in relieving low back pain as well as improving the quality of life in failed back surgery syndrome patients. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000040144. Registered on 22 November 2020

scholarly journals A randomized controlled trial investigating effects of an individualized pedometer driven walking program on chronic low back pain

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelica E. Lang ◽  
Paul A. Hendrick ◽  
Lynne Clay ◽  
Prosanta Mondal ◽  
Catherine M. Trask ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Walking Program ◽  
Walking Intervention ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Walking is an easily prescribed physical activity for people with low back pain (LBP). However, the evidence for its effectiveness to improve pain and disability levels for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) within a community setting has not been evaluated. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a clinician guided, pedometer-driven, walking intervention for increasing physical activity and improving clinical outcomes compared to education and advice. Methods Randomized controlled trial recruiting N = 174 adults with CLBP. Participants were randomly allocated into either a standardized care group (SG) or pedometer based walking group (WG) using minimization allocation with a 2:1 ratio to the WG. Prior to randomization all participants were given a standard package of education and advice regarding self-management and the benefits of staying active. Following randomization the WG undertook a physiotherapist guided pedometer-driven walking program for 12 weeks. This was individually tailored by weekly negotiation of daily step targets. Main outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) recorded at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Other outcomes included, numeric pain rating, International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Back Beliefs questionnaire (BBQ), Physical Activity Self-efficacy Scale, and EQ-5D-5L quality of life estimate. Results N = 138 (79%) participants completed all outcome measures at 12 weeks reducing to N = 96 (55%) at 12 months. Both observed and intention to treat analysis did not show any statistically significant difference in ODI change score between the WG and the SG at all post-intervention time points. There were also no significant between group differences for change scores in all secondary outcome measures. Post hoc sensitivity analyses revealed moderately disabled participants (baseline ODI ≥ 21.0) demonstrated a greater reduction in mean ODI scores at 12 months in the WG compared to SG, while WG participants with a daily baseline step count < 7500 steps demonstrated a greater reduction in mean ODI scores at 12 weeks. Conclusions Overall, we found no significant difference in change of levels of (ODI) disability between the SG and WG following the walking intervention. However, ODI responses to a walking program for those with moderate levels of baseline disability and those with low baseline step count offer a potential future focus for continued research into the benefit of walking as a management strategy for chronic LBP. Trial registration United States National Institutes of Health Clinical Trails registry (http://ClinicalTrials.gov/) No. NCT02284958 (27/10/2014).

scholarly journals Comparison of Mckenzie approach versus Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in the treatment of chronic low back pain

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-31
Author(s):  
Faria Aqil ◽  
Muhammad Affan Iqbal ◽  
Suhail Karim ◽  
Muhammad Umar Iqbal ◽  
Muhammad Junaid Akram ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Lumbar Stabilization ◽  
Numeric Pain Rating Scale

Introduction: Lumbar stabilization and McKenzie exercises are becoming a popular trend for managing chronic low back pain though it is currently not known whether lumbar stabilization exercises produce better results in improving functional status compared to McKenzie approach. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the McKenzie approach versus lumbar stabilization in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Material & Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial. Lottery method was used to randomly divide individuals who fulfilled inclusion criteria into 2 groups. Assessments of the patients were done in OPD. Baseline assessment was done on day 1 and post intervention assessment was done after 2 weeks. A total of 8 treatment sessions spread across 2 weeks were given (4 days per week). Data were assessed at baseline level and post intervention. Data was entered and analysed by SPSS version 21. Results: A total of 28 females and 02 males (mean age of 50.88 ±12.29) participated in the study. After 02 weeks of intervention, both treatment groups showed improvement in decreasing pain and improving functional status. The lumber stabilization group showed significant gains on Numeric Pain Rating Scale and (p=0.001) and Modified Oswestry Disability Index (p=0.001) compared to the Mckenzie group. Conclusion: Patients in both lumber stabilisation and McKenzie groups showed significant improvement, however, the patients in lumbar stabilization group were superior than the patients in McKenzie group on the selected outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document