OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to assess the degree of pain relief obtained by applying infrared (IR) energy to the low back in patients with chronic, intractable low back pain.
METHODS: Forty patients with chronic low back pain of over six years' duration were recruited from patients attending the Rothbart Pain Management Clinic, North York, Ontario. They came from the patient lists of three physicians at the clinic, and were randomly assigned to IR therapy or placebo treatment. One patient dropped out of the placebo group; as a result, 21 patients received IR therapy and 18 received placebo therapy. The IR therapy was provided by two small, portable units in a sturdy waistband powered by small, rechargeable batteries made by MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc (Canada). These units met safety standards for Food and Drug Administration portability, and are registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a therapeutic device. The unit converted electricity to IR energy at 800 nm to 1200 nm wavelength. The treated group received IR therapy. The placebo group had identical units, but the power was not connected to the circuit-board within the IR pad. Patients attended seven weekly sessions. One baseline and six weekly sets of values were recorded. The principle measure of outcome was pain rated on the numerical rating scale (NRS). The pain was assessed overall, then rotating and bending in different directions.
RESULTS: The mean NRS scores in the treatment group fell from 6.9 of 10 to 3 of 10 at the end of the study. The mean NRS in the placebo group fell from 7.4 of 10 to 6 of 10.
CONCLUSION: The IR therapy unit used was demonstrated to be effective in reducing chronic low back pain, and no adverse effects were observed.
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial studied the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic therapy (PEMT) in patients with chronic lower back pain. Active PEMT (n = 17) or placebo treatment (n = 19) was performed three times a week for 3 weeks. Patients were assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS) and revised Oswestry disability scores for 4 weeks after therapy. PEMT produced significant pain reduction throughout the observation period compared with baseline values. The percentage change in the NRS score from baseline was significantly greater in the PEMT group than the placebo group at all three time-points measured. The mean revised Oswestry disability percentage after 4 weeks was significantly improved from the baseline value in the PEMT group, whereas there were no significant differences in the placebo group. In conclusion, PEMT reduced pain and disability and appears to be a potentially useful therapeutic tool for the conservative management of chronic lower back pain.
OBJECTIVE: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a widespread ailment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of topiramate in the treatment of CLBP and the changes in anger status and processing, body weight, subjective pain-related disability and health-related quality of life during the course of treatment.
METHODS: We conducted a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of topiramate in 96 (36 women) patients with CLBP. The subjects were randomly assigned to topiramate (n=48) or placebo (n=48). Primary outcome measures were changes on the McGill Pain Questionnaire, State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and SF-36 Health Survey scales, and in body weight.
RESULTS: In comparison with the placebo group (according to the intent-to-treat principle), significant changes on the pain rating index of McGill Pain Questionnaire (Ps<0.001), State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory Scales (all Ps<0.001), Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (P<0.001), and SF-36 Health Survey scales (all P<0.001, except on the role-emotional scale) were observed after 10 weeks in the patients treated with topiramate. Weight loss was also observed and was significantly more pronounced in the group treated with topiramate than in those treated with placebo (P<0.001). Most patients tolerated topiramate relatively well but 2 patients dropped out because of side effects.
DISCUSSION: Topiramate seems to be a relatively safe and effective agent in the treatment of CLBP. Significantly positive changes in pain sensitivity, anger status and processing, subjective disability, health-related quality of life, and loss of weight were observed.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the immediate effect of single acupuncture stimulation to the most painful point in patients with low back pain.
METHOD: A randomised, evaluator-blinded, sham controlled clinical trial was conducted in which 31 patients with low back pain were randomly allocated to either an acupuncture group (n = 15) or a sham acupuncture group (n = 16). Both acupuncture and sham acupuncture were performed at the most painful point on the lower back of the subjects. For the acupuncture group, a stainless steel needle was inserted to a depth of 20 mm and manually stimulated (sparrow pecking method) for 20 seconds, while for the sham treatment a guide tube without a needle was placed at the point and tapped on the skin. Changes in low back pain were evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Schober test. Participants were also asked if they felt the needling sensation or not. The therapy and the evaluation were independently performed by two different acupuncturists.
RESULTS: VAS score and the Schober test score showed significant improvement after treatment as compared with the sham group (P = 0.02, 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in the needling sensation between the acupuncture and sham group.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that acupuncture at the most painful point gives immediate relief of low back pain.
INTRODUCTION: There is some evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture, but it remains unclear whether trigger point acupuncture is effective. Our objective was to evaluate the effects of trigger point acupuncture on pain and quality of life in chronic low back pain patients compared with sham acupuncture.
METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive out-patients (17 women, 9 men; age range: 65-91 years) from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Meiji University of Oriental Medicine, with non-radiating low back pain for at least six months and normal neurological examination, were randomised to two groups. Each group received one phase of trigger point acupuncture and one of sham acupuncture with a three week washout period between them, over 12 weeks. Group A (n = 13) received trigger point acupuncture in the first phase and sham acupuncture in the second. Group B (n = 13) received the same interventions in the reverse order. Outcome measures were pain intensity (visual analogue scale, VAS) and Roland Morris Questionnaire.
RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included in the analysis. At the end of the first treatment phase, group A receiving trigger point acupuncture scored significantly lower VAS (P < 0.001) and Roland Morris Questionnaire scores (P < 0.01) than the sham control group. There were significant within-group reductions in pain in both groups during the trigger point acupuncture phase but not in the sham treatment phase. However, the beneficial effects were not sustained.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that trigger point acupuncture may have greater short term effects on low back pain in elderly patients than sham acupuncture.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain (CDLBP).
OBJECTIVES: To test the safety and efficacy of IDET compared with a sham treatment (placebo).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In North America alone, more than 40,000 intradiscal catheters have been used to treat CDLBP. The evidence for efficacy of IDET is weak coming from retrospective and prospective cohort studies providing only Class II and Class III evidence. There is one study published with Class I evidence. This demonstrates statistically significant improvements following IDET; however, the clinical significance of these improvements is questionable.
METHODS: Patients with CDLBP who failed to improve following conservative therapy were considered for this study. Inclusion criteria included the presence of one- or two-level symptomatic disc degeneration with posterior or posterolateral anular tears as determined by provocative computed tomography (CT) discography. Patients were excluded if there was greater than 50% loss of disc height or previous spinal surgery. Fifty-seven patients were randomized with a 2:1 ratio: 38 to IDET and 19 to sham procedure (placebo). In all cases, the IDET catheter was positioned to cover at least 75% of the annular tear as defined by the CT discography. An independent technician connected the catheter to the generator and then either delivered electrothermal energy (active group) or did not (sham group). Surgeon, patient, and independent outcome assessor were all blinded to the treatment. All patients followed a standard postprocedural rehabilitation program. Independent statistical analysis was performed.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36), Zung Depression Index (ZDI), and Modified Somatic Perceptions Questionnaire (MSPQ) were measured at baseline and 6 months. Successful outcome was defined as: no neurologic deficit, improvement in LBOS of greater then 7 points, and improvement in SF-36 subsets (physical function and bodily pain) of greater than 1 standard deviation.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic data, initial LBOS, ODI, SF-36, ZDI, and MSPQ were similar for both groups. No neurologic deficits occurred. No subject in either arm showed improvement of greater than 7 points in LBOS or greater than 1 standard deviation in the specified domains of the SF-36. Mean ODI was 41.42 at baseline and 39.77 at 6 months for the IDET group, compared with 40.74 at baseline and 41.58 at 6 months for the placebo group. There was no significant change in ZDI or MSPQ scores for either group.
CONCLUSIONS: The IDET procedure appeared safe with no permanent complications. No subject in either arm met criteria for successful outcome. Further detailed analyses showed no significant change in outcome measures in either group at 6 months. This study demonstrates no significant benefit from IDET over placebo.
UNLABELLED: Clinical trials of the efficacy of antidepressant drugs in patients with chronic low back pain have had mixed results, possibly because of the different mechanisms of action of the drugs that have been studied. Because bupropion has a mechanism of action that differs from other antidepressants and has shown efficacy in neuropathic pain, a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover trial was conducted to evaluate its efficacy in subjects with chronic low back pain. The primary efficacy variable was mean daily diary pain intensity ratings, and secondary pain intensity and relief outcomes included weekly pain intensity ratings, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) Present Pain Intensity scale, pain relief ratings, and satisfaction with pain relief ratings. Adverse events were also assessed throughout the trial. Analyses were performed of an intention-to-treat sample of 44 patients, only 3 of whom met criteria for neuropathic low back pain. Daily and weekly pain intensity ratings, the MPQ Present Pain Intensity scale, and pain relief ratings were not significantly different following treatment with bupropion sustained release (SR) vs. placebo. These results suggest that bupropion SR was not significantly better than placebo in the treatment of patients with non-neuropathic chronic low back pain.
PERSPECTIVE: Antidepressant medications that have both noradrenergic and serotonergic effects appear to have greater efficacy in patients with chronic low back pain than those with only serotonergic activity. We studied bupropion because it inhibits the reuptake of both norepinephrine and dopamine, but found no evidence of efficacy in patients with non-neuropathic chronic low back pain.
BACKGROUND: Patients with acute low back pain may require emergency transport because of pain and immobilization. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a nonpharmaceutical therapy for patients with low back pain.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of paramedic-administered TENS in patients with acute low back pain during emergency transport.
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized study involving 74 patients transported to hospital. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 (n = 36) was treated with true TENS, while group 2 (n = 36) was treated with sham TENS. The authors recorded pain and anxiety as the main outcome variables using a visual analog scale (VAS).
RESULTS: The authors recorded a significant (p < 0.01) pain reduction (mean +/- standard deviation) during transport in group 1 (79.2 +/- 6.5 mm VAS to 48.9 +/- 8.2 mm VAS), whereas pain scores remained unchanged in group 2 (75.9 +/- 16.4 mm VAS and 77.1 +/- 11.2 mm VAS). Similarly, the scores for anxiety were significantly reduced (p < 0.01) in group 1 (81.7 +/- 7.9 mm VAS to 69.2 +/- 12.1 mm VAS) after treatment. No significant change was noted (84.5 +/- 5.8 mm VAS and 83.5 +/- 8.9 mm VAS, respectively) in group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: TENS was found to be effective and rapid in reducing pain during emergency transport of patients with acute low back pain and should be considered due to its ease of use and lack of side effects in the study population.
OBJECTIVES: Radiofrequency facet joint denervation procedures have been common practice for 2 decades in treatment of chronic low back pain. We designed this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham treatment controlled trial to determine the efficacy of radiofrequency facet joint denervation, as it is routinely performed.
METHODS: Inclusion criteria were low back pain, duration more than 6 months, and >or=50% Visual Analog Scale (VAS) reduction on diagnostic block. Exclusion criteria were prior radiofrequency treatment, radicular syndrome, coagulopathies, specific allergies, cancer, and pregnancy. A total of 81 out of 462 patients were randomized to undergo radiofrequency facet joint denervation or sham treatment. The first evaluation was carried out 3 months after treatment. Primary outcome was determined with a combined outcome measure comprising VAS, physical activities, and analgesic intake, from a twice-weekly recorded diary. Secondary outcome measures were the separate diary parameters, global perceived effect (complete relief, >50% relief, no effect, pain increase), and SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire.
RESULTS: There were no dropouts before the first evaluation. The combined outcome measure showed no differences between radio- frequency facet joint denervation (n=40; success 27.5%) and sham (n=41; success 29.3%) (P=0.86). The VAS in both groups improved (P<0.001). Global perceived effect improved after radiofrequency facet joint denervation (P<0.05). The other secondary outcome parameters showed no significant differences. Relevant costs were evaluated.
DISCUSSION: The combined outcome measure and VAS showed no difference between radiofrequency and sham, though in both groups, significant VAS improvement occurred. The global perceived effect was in favor of radiofrequency. In selected patients, radiofrequency facet joint denervation appears to be more effective than sham treatment.
The objective of the present study was to assess the degree of pain relief obtained by applying infrared (IR) energy to the low back in patients with chronic, intractable low back pain.
METHODS:
Forty patients with chronic low back pain of over six years' duration were recruited from patients attending the Rothbart Pain Management Clinic, North York, Ontario. They came from the patient lists of three physicians at the clinic, and were randomly assigned to IR therapy or placebo treatment. One patient dropped out of the placebo group; as a result, 21 patients received IR therapy and 18 received placebo therapy. The IR therapy was provided by two small, portable units in a sturdy waistband powered by small, rechargeable batteries made by MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc (Canada). These units met safety standards for Food and Drug Administration portability, and are registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a therapeutic device. The unit converted electricity to IR energy at 800 nm to 1200 nm wavelength. The treated group received IR therapy. The placebo group had identical units, but the power was not connected to the circuit-board within the IR pad. Patients attended seven weekly sessions. One baseline and six weekly sets of values were recorded. The principle measure of outcome was pain rated on the numerical rating scale (NRS). The pain was assessed overall, then rotating and bending in different directions.
RESULTS:
The mean NRS scores in the treatment group fell from 6.9 of 10 to 3 of 10 at the end of the study. The mean NRS in the placebo group fell from 7.4 of 10 to 6 of 10.
CONCLUSION:
The IR therapy unit used was demonstrated to be effective in reducing chronic low back pain, and no adverse effects were observed.
