Diagnostic Value of Lumbar Facet Joint Injection: A Prospective Triple Cross-Over Study

The diagnosis “lumbar facet syndrome” is common and often indicates severe lumbar spine surgery procedures. It is doubtful whether a painful facet joint (FJ) can be identified by a single FJ block. The aim of this study was to clarify the validity of a single and placebo controlled bilateral FJ blocks using local anesthetics. A prospective single blinded triple cross-over study was performed. 60 patients (31 f, 29 m, mean age 53.2 yrs (22–73)) with chronic low back pain (mean pain persistance 31 months, 6 months of conservative treatment without success) admitted to a local orthopaedic department for surgical or conservative therapy of chronic LBP, were included in the study. Effect on pain reduction (10 point rating scale) was measured. The 60 subjects were divided into six groups with three defined sequences of fluoroscopically guided bilateral monosegmental lumbar FJ test injections in “oblique needle” technique: verum-(local anaesthetic-), placebo-(sodium chloride-) and sham-injection. Carry-over and periodic effects were evaluated and a descriptive and statistical analysis regarding the effectiveness, difference and equality of the FJ injections and the different responses was performed. The results show a high rate of non-response, which documents the lack of reliable and valid predictors for a positive response towards FJ blocks. There was a high rate of placebo reactions noted, including subjects who previously or later reacted positively to verum injections. Equivalence was shown among verum vs. placebo and partly vs. sham also. With regard to test validity criteria, a single intraarticular FJ block with local anesthetics is not useful to detect the pain-responsible FJ and therefore is no valid and reliable diagostic tool to specify indication of lumbar spine surgery. Comparative FJ blocks with local anesthetics and placebo-controls have to be interpretated carefully also, because they solely give no proper diagnosis on FJ being main pain generator

Improved education in musculoskeletal conditions is necessary for all doctors.

It is likely that everyone will, at some time, suffer from a problem related to the musculoskeletal system, ranging from a very common problem such as osteoarthritis or back pain to severely disabling limb trauma or rheumatoid arthritis. Many musculoskeletal problems are chronic conditions. The most common symptoms are pain and disability, with an impact not only on individuals' quality of life but also, importantly, on people's ability to earn a living and be independent. It has been estimated that one in four consultations in primary care is caused by problems of the musculoskeletal system and that these conditions may account for up to 60% of all disability pensions. In contrast, teaching at undergraduate and graduate levels--and the resulting competence and confidence of many doctors--do not reflect the impact of these conditions on individuals and society. Many medical students do not have any clinical training in assessing patients with bone and joint problems. Under the umbrella of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010, experts from all parts of the world with an interest in teaching have developed recommendations for an undergraduate curriculum to improve the teaching of musculoskeletal conditions in medical schools. The goal for each medical school should be a course in musculoskeletal medicine concentrating on clinical assessment, common outpatient musculoskeletal problems and recognition of emergencies. Improving competency in the management of musculoskeletal problems within primary care settings through improved education is the next aim, but there are needs for improvement for all professionals and at all levels within the health care system

Improved education in musculoskeletal conditions is necessary for all doctors

It is likely that everyone will, at some time, suffer from a problem related to the musculoskeletal system, ranging from a very common problem such as osteoarthritis or back pain to severely disabling limb trauma or rheumatoid arthritis. Many musculoskeletal problems are chronic conditions. The most common symptoms are pain and disability, with an impact not only on individuals? quality of life but also, importantly, on people?s ability to earn a living and be independent. It has been estimated that one in four consultations in primary care is caused by problems of the musculoskeletal system and that these conditions may account for up to 60% of all disability pensions. In contrast, teaching at undergraduate and graduate levels - and the resulting competence and confidence of many doctors - do not reflect the impact of these conditions on individuals and society. Many medical students do not have any clinical training in assessing patients with bone and joint problems. Under the umbrella of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010, experts from all parts of the world with an interest in teaching have developed recommendations for an undergraduate curriculum to improve the teaching of musculoskeletal conditions in medical schools. The goal for each medical school should be a course in musculoskeletal medicine concentrating on clinical assessment, common outpatient musculoskeletal problems and recognition of emergencies. Improving competency in the management of musculoskeletal problems within primary care settings through improved education is the next aim, but there are needs for improvement for all professionals and at all levels within the health care system

Standards of care for acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain: The bone and joint decade (2000-2010)

Musculoskeletal conditions often manifest with the onset of pain and the resulting physical limitations. Musculoskeletal pain is almost inevitable in an individual's lifetime. It is one of the most common reasons for self-medication and entry into the health care system. Musculoskeletal pain affects 1 in 4 adults and is the most common source of serious long-term pain and physical disability. The monumental impact of musculoskeletal conditions is now recognized by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, World Bank, and numerous governments throughout the world through support of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000 to 2010 initiative. Individuals with musculoskeletal pain concerns are regularly ignored, their complaints often misunderstood by health care providers, and accordingly they do not receive timely or effective treatment. The standards of care in this document are designed to provide generic guidelines for appropriate care of people with acute or chronic musculoskeletal pain. This document was developed over a 4-year period using multiple international meetings and a Task Force of the Bone and Joint Decade for developing international standards for the care of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain. The final document is a product of the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care in Musculoskeletal Disorders

Quality improvement initiatives in fragility fracture care and prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review sought to describe quality improvement initiatives in fragility fracture care and prevention.RECENT FINDINGS: A major care gap persists throughout the world in the secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Systematic reviews have confirmed that the Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) model of care is associated with significant improvements in rates of bone mineral density testing, initiation of osteoporosis treatment and adherence with treatment for individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Further, these improvements in the processes of care resulted in significant reductions in refracture risk and lower post-fracture mortality. The primary challenge facing health systems now is to ensure that best practice is delivered effectively in the local healthcare setting. Publication of clinical standards for FLS at the organisational and patient level in combination with the establishment of national registries has provided a mechanism for FLS to benchmark and improve their performance. Major efforts are ongoing at the global, regional and national level to improve the acute care, rehabilitation and secondary prevention for individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Active participation in these initiatives has the potential to eliminate current care gaps in the coming decade

Manual für Methoden und Nutzung versorgungsnaher Daten zur Wissensgenerierung

There are more and more good reasons for using existing care data, with the focus in particular on the use of register data. The associated, clearly structured methodological procedure has so far been insufficiently combined, prepared and presented transparently. The German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF) has therefore set up an ad hoc commission for the use of routine practice data (RWE/RWD). The rapid report prepared by IQWiG on the scientific development of concepts for generation of care-related data and their evalua-tion for the purpose of benefit assessment of medicinal products according to 35a SGB V" is an essential step for the use of register data for the generation of evidence. The "Memorandum Register - Update 2019" published by DNVF 2020 also describes the requirements and methodological foundations of registers. Best practice examples from oncology, which are based on the uniform oncological basic data set for clinical cancer registration ( 65c SGB V), show, for example, that guidelines can be checked and recommendations for guidelines and necessary interventions can be derived in the sense of knowledge-generating health services research using register data. At the same time, however, there are no clear quality requirements and structured formal and content-related procedures in the areas of data consolidation, data verification and the use of specific methods depending on the question at hand. The previously inconsistent requirements are to be revised and a method guide for the use of suited data is to be developed and published. The first chapter of the manual on methods of care-related data explains the objective and structure of the manual. It explains why the use of the term "routine practice data" is more effective than the use of the terms Real Word Data (RWD) and Real World Evidence (RWE). By avoiding the term " real world" it should be emphasized in particular that high-quality research can also be based on routine practice data (e. g. register-based comparative studies)