Physical therapy plus general practitioners’ care versus general practitioners’ care alone for sciatica: a randomised clinical trial with a 12-month follow-up

A randomised clinical trial in primary care with a 12-months follow-up period. About 135 patients with acute sciatica (recruited from May 2003 to November 2004) were randomised in two groups: (1) the intervention group received physical therapy (PT) added to the general practitioners’ care, and (2) the control group with general practitioners’ care only. To assess the effectiveness of PT additional to general practitioners’ care compared to general practitioners’ care alone, in patients with acute sciatica. There is a lack of knowledge concerning the effectiveness of PT in patients with sciatica. The primary outcome was patients’ global perceived effect (GPE). Secondary outcomes were severity of leg and back pain, severity of disability, general health and absence from work. The outcomes were measured at 3, 6, 12 and 52 weeks after randomisation. At 3 months follow-up, 70% of the intervention group and 62% of the control group reported improvement (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.9–1.5). At 12 months follow-up, 79% of the intervention group and 56% of the control group reported improvement (RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1; 1.8). No significant differences regarding leg pain, functional status, fear of movement and health status were found at short-term or long-term follow-up. At 12 months follow-up, evidence was found that PT added to general practitioners’ care is only more effective regarding GPE, and not more cost-effective in the treatment of patients with acute sciatica than general practitioners’ care alone. There are indications that PT is especially effective regarding GPE in patients reporting severe disability at presentation

Prolonged conservative treatment or 'early' surgery in sciatica caused by a lumbar disc herniation: rationale and design of a randomized trial [ISRCT 26872154]

BACKGROUND: The design of a randomized multicenter trial is presented on the effectiveness of a prolonged conservative treatment strategy compared with surgery in patients with persisting intense sciatica (lumbosacral radicular syndrome). METHODS/DESIGN: Patients presenting themselves to their general practitioner with disabling sciatica lasting less than twelve weeks are referred to the neurology outpatient department of one of the participating hospitals. After confirmation of the diagnosis and surgical indication MRI scanning is performed. If a distinct disc herniation is discerned which in addition covers the clinically expected site the patient is eligible for randomization. Depending on the outcome of the randomization scheme the patient will either be submitted to prolonged conservative care or surgery. Surgery will be carried out according to the guidelines and between six and twelve weeks after onset of complaints. The experimental therapy consists of a prolonged conservative treatment under supervision of the general practitioner, which may be followed by surgical intervention in case of persisting or progressive disability. The main primary outcome measure is the disease specific disability of daily functioning. Other primary outcome measures are perceived recovery and intensity of legpain. Secondary outcome measures encompass severity of complaints, quality of life, medical consumption, absenteeism, costs and preference. The main research question will be answered at 12 months after randomization. The total follow-up period covers two years. DISCUSSION: Evidence is lacking concerning the optimal treatment of lumbar disc induced sciatica. This pragmatic randomized trial, focusses on the 'timing' of intervention, and will contribute to the decision of the general practictioner and neurologist, regarding referral of patients for surgery

Timing and minimal access surgery for sciatica: a summary of two randomized trials

Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

Effect of apomorphine on cognitive performance and sensorimotor gating in humans

Contains fulltext : 88792.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)INTRODUCTION: Dysfunction of brain dopamine systems is involved in various neuropsychiatric disorders. Challenge studies with dopamine receptor agonists have been performed to assess dopamine receptor functioning, classically using the release of growth hormone (GH) from the hindbrain as primary outcome measure. The objective of the current study was to assess dopamine receptor functioning at the forebrain level. METHODS: Fifteen healthy male volunteers received apomorphine sublingually (2 mg), subcutaneously (0.005 mg/kg), and placebo in a balanced, double-blind, cross-over design. Outcome measures were plasma GH levels, performance on an AX continuous performance test, and prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle. The relation between central outcome measures and apomorphine levels observed in plasma and calculated in the brain was modeled using a two-compartmental pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. RESULTS: After administration of apomorphine, plasma GH increased and performance on the AX continuous performance test deteriorated, particularly in participants with low baseline performance. Apomorphine disrupted prepulse inhibition (PPI) on high-intensity (85 dB) prepulse trials and improved PPI on low intensity (75 dB) prepulse trials, particularly in participants with low baseline PPI. High cognitive performance at baseline was associated with reduced baseline sensorimotor gating. Neurophysiological measures correlated best with calculated brain apomorphine levels after subcutaneous administration. CONCLUSION: The apomorphine challenge test appears a useful tool to assess dopamine receptor functioning at the forebrain level. Modulation of the effect of apomorphine by baseline performance levels may be explained by an inverted U-shape relation between prefrontal dopamine functioning and cognitive performance, and mesolimbic dopamine functioning and sensorimotor gating. Future apomorphine challenge tests preferentially use multiple outcome measures, after subcutaneous administration of apomorphine.1 januari 201

Specific treatment of problems of the spine (STOPS): design of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy versus advice for people with subacute low back disorders

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back disorders are a common and costly cause of pain and activity limitation in adults. Few treatment options have demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits apart from advice which is recommended in all international guidelines. Clinical heterogeneity of participants in clinical trials is hypothesised as reducing the likelihood of demonstrating treatment effects, and sampling of more homogenous subgroups is recommended. We propose five subgroups that allow the delivery of specific physiotherapy treatment targeting the pathoanatomical, neurophysiological and psychosocial components of low back disorders. The aim of this article is to describe the methodology of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy treatment to advice for people classified into five subacute low back disorder subgroups.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial is proposed. A minimum of 250 participants with subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) low back pain and/or referred leg pain will be classified into one of five subgroups and then randomly allocated to receive either physiotherapy advice (2 sessions over 10 weeks) or specific physiotherapy treatment (10 sessions over 10 weeks) tailored according to the subgroup of the participant. Outcomes will be assessed at 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 6 months and 12 months following randomisation. Primary outcomes will be activity limitation measured with a modified Oswestry Disability Index as well as leg and back pain intensity measured on separate 0-10 Numerical Rating Scales. Secondary outcomes will include a 7-point global rating of change scale, satisfaction with physiotherapy treatment, satisfaction with treatment results, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersomeness Scale, quality of life (EuroQol-5D), interference with work, and psychosocial risk factors (Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire). Adverse events and co-interventions will also be measured. Data will be analysed according to intention to treat principles, using linear mixed models for continuous outcomes, Mann Whitney U tests for ordinal outcomes, and Chi-square, risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will determine the difference in outcomes between specific physiotherapy treatment tailored to each of the five subgroups versus advice which is recommended in guidelines as a suitable treatment for most people with a low back disorder.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12609000834257.aspx">ACTRN12609000834257</a>.</p

The Geomechanics of CO2 Storage in Deep Sedimentary Formations

This paper provides a review of the geomechanics and modeling of geomechanics associated with geologic carbon storage (GCS), focusing on storage in deep sedimentary formations, in particular saline aquifers. The paper first introduces the concept of storage in deep sedimentary formations, the geomechanical processes and issues related with such an operation, and the relevant geomechanical modeling tools. This is followed by a more detailed review of geomechanical aspects, including reservoir stress-strain and microseismicity, well integrity, caprock sealing performance, and the potential for fault reactivation and notable (felt) seismic events. Geomechanical observations at current GCS field deployments, mainly at the In Salah CO2 storage project in Algeria, are also integrated into the review. The In Salah project, with its injection into a relatively thin, low-permeability sandstone is an excellent analogue to the saline aquifers that might be used for large scale GCS in parts of Northwest Europe, the U.S. Midwest, and China. Some of the lessons learned at In Salah related to geomechanics are discussed, including how monitoring of geomechanical responses is used for detecting subsurface geomechanical changes and tracking fluid movements, and how such monitoring and geomechanical analyses have led to preventative changes in the injection parameters. Recently, the importance of geomechanics has become more widely recognized among GCS stakeholders, especially with respect to the potential for triggering notable (felt) seismic events and how such events could impact the long-term integrity of a CO{sub 2} repository (as well as how it could impact the public perception of GCS). As described in the paper, to date, no notable seismic event has been reported from any of the current CO{sub 2} storage projects, although some unfelt microseismic activities have been detected by geophones. However, potential future commercial GCS operations from large power plants will require injection at a much larger scale. For such largescale injections, a staged, learn-as-you-go approach is recommended, involving a gradual increase of injection rates combined with continuous monitoring of geomechanical changes, as well as siting beneath a multiple layered overburden for multiple flow barrier protection, should an unexpected deep fault reactivation occur