US bank pricing survey 1985

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Lending Division - LD:3668.239(EIU-SR--206) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Randomised placebo-controlled trial on the effectiveness of nasal salmon calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

This is a double blind randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of nasal salmon calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The trial compared the outcome of salmon calcitonin nasal spray to placebo nasal spray in patients with MRI confirmed lumbar spinal stenosis. Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the commonest conditions encountered by spine surgeons. It more frequently affects elderly patients and lumbar decompression has been used to treat the condition with variable success. Non operative measures have been investigated, but their success ranges from 15% to 43% in patients followed up for 1–5 years (Simotas in Clin Orthop 1(384):153–161, 2001). Salmon calcitonin injections have been investigated in previous trials and may have a treatment effect. Nasal salmon calcitonin has become available and if effective would have advantages over injections. Forty patients with symptoms of neurogenic claudication and MRI proven lumbar spinal stenosis were randomly assigned either nasal salmon calcitonin or placebo nasal spray to use for 4 weeks. This was followed by a ‘washout’ period of 6 weeks, and subsequent treatment with 6 weeks of nasal salmon calcitonin. Standard spine outcome measures including Oswestry disability index (ODI), low back outcome score, visual analogue score and shuttle walking test were administered at baseline, 4, 10 and 16 weeks. Twenty patients received nasal salmon calcitonin and twenty patients received placebo nasal spray. At 4 weeks post treatment there was no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures between the two groups. The change in ODI was a mean 1.3 points for the calcitonin group and 0.6 points for the placebo group (P = 0.51), the mean change in visual analogue score for leg pain was 10 mm in the calcitonin group and 0 mm in the placebo group (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in walking distance between the two groups, with a mean improvement in walking distance of 21 m in the calcitonin group and 8 m in the placebo group (P = 0.78). At the end of the trial the ODI had improved by a mean of 3.7 points in the calcitonin group and 3.8 points in the placebo group (P = 0.44). This randomised placebo controlled trial has not shown any treatment effect in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with nasal salmon calcitonin

Estudo prospectivo comparativo entre pseudoartrose e fusão óssea na estenose de canal lombar Prospective-comparative study between pseudarthrosis and bone fusion in lumbar stenosis

OBJETIVO: Estudo prospectivo comparativo entre pseudoartrose e fusão óssea na estenose de canal lombar MÉTODO: 38 pacientes operados de estenose de canal lombar e submetidos à artrodese avaliados por meio de questionários (escala visual analógica - VAS e questionário de incapacidade Rolland Morris). Foram solicitadas radiografias para avaliação da fusão lombar. RESULTADOS: Foi observada uma efetiva melhora entre o momento pré-operatório e após um ano em relação ao VAS, tanto no grupo que obteve fusão óssea como no grupo com pseudartrose. Em relação ao questionário Rolland Morris houve uma tendência de melhora no grupo com fusão óssea e uma significante melhora no grupo com pseudoartrose. CONCLUSÃO: Não houve diferença entre os grupos (fusão óssea e pseudoartrose) em relação à dor e incapacidade. Nível de Evidência: Nível II, estudo prospectivo longitudinal.<br>OBJECTIVE: Prospective-comparative study between pseudarthrosis and bone fusion in lumbar stenosis METHODS: 38 patients operated on for lumbar spinal stenosis and submitted to arthrodesis were evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Radiographs were requested to evaluate spinal fusion. RESULTS: An effective improvement was observed between the preoperative period and one year after the operation, in relation to VAS, both in the group that received a bone fusion and in the group with pseudarthrosis. With regard to the Roland Morris questionnaire, there was a tendency towards an improvement in the bone fusion group and a significant improvement in the pseudarthrosis group. CONCLUSION: There was no difference between the groups (bone fusion and pseudarthrosis) in relation to pain and disability. . Level of Evidence: Level II, longitudinal prospective study