7 research outputs found

    Video2_Importance of quadratus lumborum muscle trigger point injection and prolotherapy technique for lower back and buttock pain.mp4

    No full text
    BackgroundLow back pain is a heterogeneous disease. Myofascial pain and enthesopathy of the quadratus lumborum muscle are important causes of lower back and/or buttock pain. However, a concrete, safe, and effective injection technique for the treatment of trigger points and enthesopathy in the quadratus lumborum muscle has not yet been developed.ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the importance of the quadratus lumborum muscle and introduce an effective landmark-based blind injection technique for treating quadratus lumborum trigger points and enthesopathy.MethodsAdult patients (n = 17) with lower back and/or buttock pain were placed in the lateral decubitus position. Next, we delicately palpated the quadratus lumborum muscle to accurately locate its lesions, including trigger points, taut bands, and tendon lesions, after five key landmarks had been identified. A newly designed 60–90-mm, 28G thin hypodermic needle was inserted at the tender points. The needle was typically advanced until its tip touched the transverse process to treat myofascial trigger points and tendon lesions in the iliolumbar and lumbocostal fibers, excluding superficial trigger points of the iliocostal fibers. Subsequently, lidocaine (0.5%) or a mixture of lidocaine (0.5%) and dextrose (12.5–15%) was injected.ResultsThe pretreatment visual analog scale score for all 17 patients decreased from ≥4–8/10 (mean 5.588) to 0–1/10 (mean 0.294) after completion of all treatments. The total number of treatments was one to four in acute and subacute cases and two to eight in chronic cases. The mean follow-up period was 73.5 days (treatment period: range, 4 to 43 days + at least 60 days of follow-up).ConclusionsHerein, we describe for the first time a landmark-based integrated injection technique for the treatment of trigger points and myofascial pain in the quadratus lumborum; this technique is safe, effective, and can be used with or without steroids, fluoroscopy, or ultrasound guidance.</p

    Video1_Importance of quadratus lumborum muscle trigger point injection and prolotherapy technique for lower back and buttock pain.mp4

    No full text
    BackgroundLow back pain is a heterogeneous disease. Myofascial pain and enthesopathy of the quadratus lumborum muscle are important causes of lower back and/or buttock pain. However, a concrete, safe, and effective injection technique for the treatment of trigger points and enthesopathy in the quadratus lumborum muscle has not yet been developed.ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the importance of the quadratus lumborum muscle and introduce an effective landmark-based blind injection technique for treating quadratus lumborum trigger points and enthesopathy.MethodsAdult patients (n = 17) with lower back and/or buttock pain were placed in the lateral decubitus position. Next, we delicately palpated the quadratus lumborum muscle to accurately locate its lesions, including trigger points, taut bands, and tendon lesions, after five key landmarks had been identified. A newly designed 60–90-mm, 28G thin hypodermic needle was inserted at the tender points. The needle was typically advanced until its tip touched the transverse process to treat myofascial trigger points and tendon lesions in the iliolumbar and lumbocostal fibers, excluding superficial trigger points of the iliocostal fibers. Subsequently, lidocaine (0.5%) or a mixture of lidocaine (0.5%) and dextrose (12.5–15%) was injected.ResultsThe pretreatment visual analog scale score for all 17 patients decreased from ≥4–8/10 (mean 5.588) to 0–1/10 (mean 0.294) after completion of all treatments. The total number of treatments was one to four in acute and subacute cases and two to eight in chronic cases. The mean follow-up period was 73.5 days (treatment period: range, 4 to 43 days + at least 60 days of follow-up).ConclusionsHerein, we describe for the first time a landmark-based integrated injection technique for the treatment of trigger points and myofascial pain in the quadratus lumborum; this technique is safe, effective, and can be used with or without steroids, fluoroscopy, or ultrasound guidance.</p

    Comparison of eradication rates of moxifloxacin–rifabutin triple therapy and bismuth quadruple therapy as second‐line regimens in patients with peptic ulcers

    No full text
    Abstract Background Bismuth quadruple (BQ) therapy is known to have poor patient compliance and a complex dosing method, and no appropriate third‐line regimen exists if second‐line BQ therapy fails. In Korea, some alternative regimens have shown unsatisfactory eradication rates. Therefore, we investigated the success rates of the second‐line moxifloxacin–rifabutin triple (MRT) regimen and compared it with BQ regimen in subgroup analysis of peptic ulcer patients. Materials and Methods This study was a retrospective study of 71 patients who underwent a second‐line MRT for Helicobacter pylori after failing to clarithromycin triple regimen. To compare the eradication rate in gastric ulcer patients, 51 patients in the MRT group and 132 patients in BQ group were included. After age and sex propensity matching, 45 patients were included in each group (the alpha value and power were set at 0.05% and 77%, respectively). Results The eradication rate in the MRT group was 69.0% (49/71) in the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis and 77.8% (49/63) in the per‐protocol (PP) analysis. These were significantly lower than the eradication rate in the BQ group (82.5%, p = 0.019 in the ITT analysis; 89.3%, p = 0.022 in the PP analysis). In subgroup analysis of peptic ulcer patients, the success rate of BQ group was significantly higher than that of MRT group in both ITT and PP populations (81.8% (108/132) vs. 60.8% (31/51) in the ITT populations, p = 0.004; and 90.0% (108/120) vs. 72.1% (31/43) in the PP populations, p = 0.010). Among the 14 patients with MRT therapy failure, 10 were eradicated with BQ as the third‐line regimen. The eradication rate of the third‐line BQ after the second‐line MRT failure was 90.0% (9/10). Conclusion Second‐line MRT therapy was not as effective as BQ therapy, so it should be considered for limited use only when BQ is not available
    corecore