scholarly journals Long-term therapeutic outcome of patients with low back pain treated at lumbago pain clinic

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-107
Author(s):  
Akiko SHINOHARA
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 465-479
Author(s):  
Ben Hunter, MBChB, BSc (Hons) ◽  
Shiva Tripathi, MBBS, FRCA, CCT

Introduction: Current data suggest that the chronic use of strong opioids in low back pain (LBP) is increasing. There is evidence for the use of opioids in the initial management of LBP, but the efficacy in the long term is unknown. This article intends to examine the use of opioids in patients with chronic LBP over a period of three doctor-led clinics.Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study following 200 patients through the pain clinic at a UK teaching hospital for more than two clinic visits, up to a maximum of three. Data concerning demographics, pain scores, medication changes, and clinic outcome.Results: Data collected showed that there was a significant correlation between baseline morphine equivalent amount (MEA) and final clinic MEA; initial pain scores and final clinic MEA; cause of LBP and final clinic LBP; and traumatic LBP and absolute change in MEA. There was no association between number of physical interventions and MEA. The sample also showed an average absolute change in MEA by 2.93 ± 57.86 mg. The proportion of patients with a MEA of 50 mg/d increased from 24 to 29 percent. The proportion of patients on opioids at least one opioid increased by 10 percent.Conclusions: Significant predictors of final clinic MEA were initial pain scores, baseline MEA, and the cause of LBP. Duration of pain was a poor predictor of MEA. There was no association between MEA and number of interventions. In this cohort, the trend seems to be increasing the number and dose of opioids in patients with LBP.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e001068
Author(s):  
Shaun Wellburn ◽  
Cormac G Ryan ◽  
Andrew Coxon ◽  
Alastair J Dickson ◽  
D John Dickson ◽  
...  

ObjectivesEvaluate the outcomes and explore experiences of patients undergoing a residential combined physical and psychological programme (CPPP) for chronic low back pain.DesignA longitudinal observational cohort design, with a parallel qualitative design using semistructured interviews.SettingResidential, multimodal rehabilitation.Participants136 adults (62 male/74 female) referred to the CPPP, 100 (44 male/56 female) of whom completed the programme, during the term of the study. Ten (2 male/8 female) participated in the qualitative evaluation.InterventionA 3-week residential CPPP.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures were the STarT Back screening tool score; pain intensity—11-point Numerical Rating Scale; function—Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); health status/quality of life—EQ-5D-5L EuroQol five-Dimension-five level; anxiety—Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depression—Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Secondary outcome measures were the Global Subjective Outcome Scale; National Health Service Friends and Family Test;.ResultsAt discharge, 6 and 12 months follow ups, there were improvements from baseline that were greater than minimum clinically important differences in each of the outcomes (with the sole exception of ODI at discharge). At 12 months, the majority of people considered themselves a lot better (57%) and were extremely likely (86%) to recommend the programme to a friend. The qualitative data showed praise for the residential nature of the intervention and the opportunities for interaction with peers and peer support. There were testimonies of improvements in understanding of pain and how to manage it better. Some participants said they had reduced, or stopped, medication they had been taking to manage their pain.ConclusionsParticipants improved, and maintained long term, beyond minimum clinically important differences on a wide range of outcomes. Participants reported an enhanced ability to self-manage their back pain and support for the residential setting.


Spine ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 850-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke E. Patrick ◽  
Elizabeth M. Altmaier ◽  
Ernest M. Found

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 716-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chad Cook ◽  
Shannon Petersen ◽  
Megan Donaldson ◽  
Mark Wilhelm ◽  
Ken Learman

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2110280
Author(s):  
Camille Daste ◽  
Stéphanie Laclau ◽  
Margaux Boisson ◽  
François Segretin ◽  
Antoine Feydy ◽  
...  

Objectives: We aim to evaluate the benefits and harms of intervertebral disc therapies (IDTs) in people with non-specific chronic low back pain (NScLBP). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of IDTs versus placebo interventions, active comparators or usual care. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and CINHAL databases and conference abstracts were searched from inception to June 2020. Two independent investigators extracted data. The primary outcome was LBP intensity at short term (1 week–3 months), intermediate term (3–6 months) and long term (after 6 months). Results: Of 18 eligible trials (among 1396 citations), five assessed glucocorticoids (GCs) IDTs and were included in a quantitative synthesis; 13 assessed other products including etanercept ( n = 2), tocilizumab ( n = 1), methylene blue ( n = 2), ozone ( n = 2), chymopapaine ( n = 1), glycerol ( n = 1), stem cells ( n = 1), platelet-rich plasma ( n = 1) and recombinant human growth and differentiation factor-5 ( n = 2), and were included in a narrative synthesis. Standardized mean differences (95% CI) for GC IDTs for LBP intensity and activity limitations were −1.33 (−2.34; −0.32) and −0.76 (−1.85; 0.34) at short term, −2.22 (−5.34; 0.90) and −1.60 (−3.51; 0.32) at intermediate term and −1.11 (−2.91; 0.70) and −0.63 (−1.68; 0.42) at long term, respectively. Odds ratios (95% CI) for serious and minor adverse events with GC IDTs were 1.09 (0.25; 4.65) and 0.97 (0.49; 1.91). Conclusion: GC IDTs are associated with a reduction in LBP intensity at short term in people with NScLBP. Positive effects are not sustained. IDTs have no effect on activity limitations. Our conclusions are limited by high heterogeneity and a limited methodological quality across studies. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42019106336.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 583-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Lukas Meier ◽  
Andrea Vrana ◽  
Petra Schweinhardt

Motor control, which relies on constant communication between motor and sensory systems, is crucial for spine posture, stability and movement. Adaptions of motor control occur in low back pain (LBP) while different motor adaption strategies exist across individuals, probably to reduce LBP and risk of injury. However, in some individuals with LBP, adapted motor control strategies might have long-term consequences, such as increased spinal loading that has been linked with degeneration of intervertebral discs and other tissues, potentially maintaining recurrent or chronic LBP. Factors contributing to motor control adaptations in LBP have been extensively studied on the motor output side, but less attention has been paid to changes in sensory input, specifically proprioception. Furthermore, motor cortex reorganization has been linked with chronic and recurrent LBP, but underlying factors are poorly understood. Here, we review current research on behavioral and neural effects of motor control adaptions in LBP. We conclude that back pain-induced disrupted or reduced proprioceptive signaling likely plays a pivotal role in driving long-term changes in the top-down control of the motor system via motor and sensory cortical reorganization. In the outlook of this review, we explore whether motor control adaptations are also important for other (musculoskeletal) pain conditions.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Harwood ◽  
Jesse Pines ◽  
C. Holly A. Andrilla ◽  
Bianca K. Frogner

Abstract Background: Diagnostic testing and treatment recommendations can vary when medical care is sought by individuals for low back pain (LBP), leading to variation in quality and costs of care. We examine how first provider seen by an individual at initial diagnosis of LBP influences downstream utilization and costs. Methods: Using national private health insurance claims data, individuals age 18 or older were retrospectively assigned to cohorts based on the first provider seen at the index date of LBP diagnosis. Exclusion criteria included individuals with a diagnosis of LBP or any serious medical conditions, or an opioid prescription recorded in the six months prior to the index date. Outcome measures included use of imaging, back surgery rates, hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, early- and long-term opioid use, and costs (out-of-pocket and total costs of care) twelve months post-index date. We used a common econometric technique, two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) estimation to reduce selection bias in the choice of first provider, controlling for demographics.Results: Among 3,799,593 individuals, cost and utilization varied considerably based on first provider seen by the patient. The frequency of early opioid prescription was significantly lower when care began with an acupuncturist or chiropractor, and highest for those who began with an emergency medicine physician or advanced practice registered nurse (APRN). Long-term opioid prescriptions were low across most providers except physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians and APRNs. The frequency and time to serious illness varied little across providers. Total cost of care was lowest when starting with a chiropractor ($5,093) or primary care physician ($5,660), and highest when starting with an orthopedist ($9,434) or acupuncturist ($9,205). Conclusion: The first provider seen by individuals with LBP was associated with large differences in health care utilization, opioid prescriptions, and cost while there were no differences in delays in diagnosis of serious illness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document