Re: Chou R, Atlas SJ, Stanos SP, et al. Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society clinical practice guideline. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34: 1078-93

Effect of pelvic fixation on ambulation in children with neuromuscular scoliosis

BACKGROUND

The effect of posterior spinal fusion (PSF) incorporating the pelvis on an ambulatory patient’s ability to mobilize after the fusion is not well understood.

AIM

To see whether a posterior spinal fusion with pelvic fixation using iliac or sacral alar iliac screws in ambulatory neuromuscular scoliosis (NMS) patients influences postoperative ambulatory ability.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients with NMS that underwent PSF with fixation incorporating the pelvis between January 1, 2012 and February 29, 2019. A total of 118 patients were eligible, including 11 ambulatory patients. The primary outcome was the maintenance of ambulatory status postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included postoperative curve magnitude, pelvic obliquity, and complications, comprising infections, instrumentation failure, and any unplanned returns to the operative room.

RESULTS

The ambulatory function was maintained in all 11 ambulatory NMS patients. One patient had an improvement in functional status with equipment-free ambulation postoperatively. An average postoperative follow-up was 19 mo. The overall complication rate was 19.4% (n = 23) with no significant differences between the groups in infection (P = 0.365), hardware failure (P = 0.505), and reoperation rate (P = 1.0). Ambulatory status did not affect complication rate (P = 0.967).

CONCLUSION

Spinal fusion to the pelvis in ambulatory patients with NMS provides effective deformity correction without the reduction in ambulatory capabilities.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Chronic Spinal Pain Patients with Different Hopes (Treatment Goals) for Ongoing Chiropractic Care

Objectives: The treatment goals of patients successfully using ongoing provider-based care for chronic spinal pain can help inform health policy related to this care. Design: Multinomial logistical hierarchical linear models were used to examine the characteristics of patients with different treatment goals for their ongoing care. Settings/Location: Observational data from a large national sample of patients from 125 chiropractic clinics clustered in 6 U.S. regions. Subjects: Patients with nonwork-injury-related nonspecific chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). Interventions: All were receiving ongoing chiropractic care. Outcome measures: Primary outcomes were patient endorsement of one of four goals for their treatment. Explanatory variables included pain characteristics, pain beliefs, goals for mobility/flexibility, demographics, and other psychological variables. Results: Across our sample of 1614 patients (885 with CLBP and 729 with CNP) just under one-third endorsed a treatment goal of having their pain go away permanently (cure). The rest had goals of preventing their pain from coming back (22% CLBP, 16% CNP); preventing their pain from getting worse (14% CLBP, 12% CNP); or temporarily relieving their pain (31% CLBP, 41% CNP). In univariate analysis across these goals, patients differed significantly on almost all variables. In the multinomial logistic models, a goal of cure was associated with shorter pain duration and more belief in a medical cure; a goal of preventing pain from coming back was associated with lower pain levels; and those with goals of preventing their pain from getting worse or temporarily relieving pain were similar, including in having their pain longer. Conclusions: Although much of health policy follows a curative model, the majority of these CLBP and CNP patients have goals of pain management (using ongoing care) rather than "cure" (care with a specific end) for their chiropractic care. This information could be useful in crafting policy for patients facing provider-based nonpharmacologic care for chronic pain.

Neuroimaging-based biomarkers for pain: state of the field and current directions

Chronic pain is an endemic problem involving both peripheral and brain pathophysiology. Although biomarkers have revolutionized many areas of medicine, biomarkers for pain have remained controversial and relatively underdeveloped. With the realization that biomarkers can reveal pain-causing mechanisms of disease in brain circuits and in the periphery, this situation is poised to change. In particular, brain pathophysiology may be diagnosable with human brain imaging, particularly when imaging is combined with machine learning techniques designed to identify predictive measures embedded in complex data sets. In this review, we explicate the need for brain-based biomarkers for pain, some of their potential uses, and some of the most popular machine learning approaches that have been brought to bear. Then, we evaluate the current state of pain biomarkers developed with several commonly used methods, including structural magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography. The field is in the early stages of biomarker development, but these complementary methodologies have already produced some encouraging predictive models that must be tested more extensively across laboratories and clinical populations.

Prolotherapy Induces an Inflammatory Response in Human Tenocytes In Vitro

BACKGROUND

Proliferative therapy, or prolotherapy, is a controversial treatment method for many connective tissue injuries and disorders. It involves the injection of a proliferant, or irritant solution, into the site of injury, which causes small-scale cell death. This therapeutic trauma is theorized to initiate the body's wound-healing cascade, perhaps leading to tissue repair. The immediate effects of many of these proliferants are poorly characterized, as are the cellular responses to them; here, we sought to evaluate the immediate effects of two common proliferants (dextrose and P2G, a combination of phenol, glucose, and glycerin) on the cellular response of human tenocytes, and begin to explicate the mechanisms with which each proliferant functions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: What are the effects of treating cultured tenocytes with proliferative treatment agents on their (1) cellular metabolic activity, (2) RNA expression, (3) protein secretion, and (4) cell migration?

METHODS

Using human hamstring and Achilles tendon cells, we attempted to answer our research questions. We used a colorimetric metabolic assay to assess the effect of dextrose and P2G proliferant treatment on cell mitochondrial activity compared with nontreated tenocytes. Next, using quantitative PCR, ELISA, and a reporter cell line, we assessed the expression of several key markers involved in tendon development and inflammation. In addition, we used a scratch wound-healing assay to evaluate the effect of proliferant treatment on tenocyte migration.

RESULTS

Results showed that exposure to both solutions led to decreased metabolic activity of tenocytes, with P2G having the more pronounced effect (75% ± 7% versus 95% ± 7% of untreated control cell metabolic levels) (ANOVA; p < 0.01; mean difference, 0.202; 95% CI, 0.052-0.35). Next, gene expression analysis confirmed that treatment led to the upregulation of key proinflammatory markers including interleukin-8 and cyclooxygenase-2 and downregulation of the matrix marker collagen type I. Furthermore, using a reporter cell line for transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), a prominent antiinflammatory marker, we showed that treatments led to decreased TGF-β bioactivity. Analysis of soluble proteins using ELISA revealed elevated levels of soluble prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), a prominent inducer of inflammation. Finally, both solutions led to decreased cellular migration in the tenocytes.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these results suggest that prolotherapy, more so with P2G, may work by decreasing cellular function and eliciting an inflammatory response in tenocytes. Additional studies are needed to confirm the cellular signaling mechanisms involved and the resulting immediate response in vivo.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

If these preliminary in vitro findings can be confirmed in an in vivo model, they may provide clues for a possible cellular mechanism of a common alternative treatment method currently used for certain soft tissue injuries.

Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.

METHODS

We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.

RESULTS

Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.

The role of image guidance in improving the safety of pain treatment

The use of fluoroscopy, computed tomography, and, most recently, ultrasound in the pain clinic all have advanced rapidly, yet there is scant evidence that this improves the safety or efficacy of pain treatment. In this manuscript, the available evidence about the usefulness of diagnostic imaging and image guidance in planning and delivering pain treatment is critically reviewed. The use of image guidance has become a routine and integral component of pain treatment; however, there is insufficient scientific evidence to judge whether this has improved safety. The logical appeal is overwhelming, to the point that it is now unlikely that scientific comparisons of most techniques with and without radiographic guidance will ever be conducted. This analysis can serve to guide future investigators who set out to understand how to apply new imaging techniques, and in the process, how to rigorously evaluate their usefulness.

Radiofrequency treatment of facet-related pain: evidence and controversies

Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints is estimated to represent about 15% of all low back pain complaints. The diagnostic block is considered to be a valuable tool for confirming facetogenic pain. It was demonstrated that a block of the ramus medialis of the ramus dorsalis is preferred over an intra-articular injection. The outcome of the consequent radiofrequency treatment is not different in patients reporting over 80% pain relief after the diagnostic block than in those who have between 50% and 79% pain relief. There is one well-conducted comparative trial assessing the value of one or two controlled diagnostic blocks to none. The results of the seven randomized trials on the use of radiofrequency treatment of facet joint pain demonstrate that good patient selection is imperative for good clinical outcome. Therefore, we suggest one block of the ramus medialis of the ramus dorsalis before radiofrequency treatment.

12. Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints

Although the existence of a "facet syndrome" had long been questioned, it is now generally accepted as a clinical entity. Depending on the diagnostic criteria, the zygapophysial joints account for between 5% and 15% of cases of chronic, axial low back pain. Most commonly, facetogenic pain is the result of repetitive stress and/or cumulative low-level trauma, leading to inflammation and stretching of the joint capsule. The most frequent complaint is axial low back pain with referred pain perceived in the flank, hip, and thigh. No physical examination findings are pathognomonic for diagnosis. The strongest indicator for lumbar facet pain is pain reduction after anesthetic blocks of the rami mediales (medial branches) of the rami dorsales that innervate the facet joints. Because false-positive and, possibly, false-negative results may occur, results must be interpreted carefully. In patients with injection-confirmed zygapophysial joint pain, procedural interventions can be undertaken in the context of a multidisciplinary, multimodal treatment regimen that includes pharmacotherapy, physical therapy and regular exercise, and, if indicated, psychotherapy. Currently, the "gold standard" for treating facetogenic pain is radiofrequency treatment (1 B+). The evidence supporting intra-articular corticosteroids is limited; hence, this should be reserved for those individuals who do not respond to radiofrequency treatment (2 B±).