The influence of comorbidities on outcomes for older people with back pain:BACE-D cohort study

Background: Comorbidities are common in older people with back pain but little is known about the influence of comorbidities on outcomes. Objectives: To explore the influence of the most prevalent comorbidities, and the number of comorbidities, on short (at 3 months) and long-term (at 12 months) outcomes of back pain in older people. Methods: We analyzed data from the ‘Back Complaints in the Elders’ Dutch study cohort (BACE-D) and included participants aged &gt;55 years. We used the modified Self-Administered Comorbidities Questionnaire (SCQ), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) to assess the number of comorbidities, pain intensity and back-related physical functioning, respectively. We conducted separate linear regression models to analyze the association between comorbidities and outcomes including potential confounders of age, sex, body mass index, smoking and alcoholic drinking status, back pain history, and baseline NRS and RMDQ scores. Results: Our study included 669 participants with a mean age of 66.5 (SD 7.7) years of whom 394 were female. More comorbidities were positively associated with higher pain intensity (3-month regression coefficient (β) =0.27, 95% CI 0.14–0.39; 12-month β = 0.31, 95% CI 0.17–0.45) and worse physical functioning (3-month β = 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.77; 12-month β = 0.64, 95% CI 0.37–0.92). Four of the 5 commonest comorbidities were musculoskeletal problems. Older participants with musculoskeletal comorbidities had higher pain intensity (3-month β = 0.89 95% CI 0.41–1.37; 12-month β = 1.17, 95% CI 0.65–1.69), and worse physical functioning (3-month β = 1.61, 95% CI 0.71–2.52; 12-month β = 1.85, 95% CI 0.82–2.89, P-value &lt; 0.001) compared to participants without musculoskeletal comorbidities. Conclusions: More comorbidities are associated with worse back pain outcomes in older adults. Participants with musculoskeletal comorbidities had worse back pain outcomes than those without.</p

Cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation

Background: Open discectomy is the standard surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with long-lasting sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive approaches such as microendoscopic discectomy have gained attention in recent years. Reduced tissue trauma allows early ambulation, short hospital stay and quick resumption of daily activities. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Methods/Design: Patients (age 18-70 years) presenting with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation lasting more than 6-8 weeks are included. Patients with disc herniation larger than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, or disc herniation less than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter with concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eliglible for participation. Randomisation into microendoscopic discectomy or conventional unilateral transflaval discectomy will take place in the operating room after induction of anesthesia. The length of skin incision is equal in both groups. The primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient, measured by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, at 8 weeks and 1 year after surgery. We will also evaluate several other outcome parameters, including perceived recovery, leg and back pain, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine kinase, quality of life, medical consumption, absenteeism and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multi-institutional trial, in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses are kept blinded of the allocated treatment during the follow-up period of 2 years. Discussion: Currently, open discectomy is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether microendoscopic discectomy is more cost-effective than unilateral transflaval discectomy has to be determined by this trial

Prevalence and consequences of spinal pain among people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Denmark

Purpose: To describe 1-week and 1-year prevalence of spinal pain and its consequences in relation to leisure activity, work-life, and care-seeking in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods: A cross-sectional survey including adults diagnosed with DM from two Danish secondary care centres. Using the Standardised Nordic Questionnaire, spinal pain prevalence (cervical, thoracic, lumbar) and its consequences were evaluated (proportions, 95% confidence intervals) and compared to the general population. Results: Among 3767 people, 1-week and 1-year spinal pain prevalence were 11.6–32.4 and 18.5–49.6%, respectively, highest for lumbar pain (24.6–49.6%). The prevalence was similar between DM types for cervical and thoracic pain, but higher in type 2 for lumbar spine. Women had higher pain prevalence across spinal regions and DM types, while cervical and thoracic pain estimates were higher for age &lt; 60 vs. ≥ 60. Within the past year, &gt; 50% reported pain &gt; 30 days, high proportions had reduced their activities (leisure time, 43.7–63.9%; work, 20.7–33.3%), 13.3–28.1% reported sick-leave &gt; 30 days, and 44.3–48.5% had sought care due to spinal pain. Conclusion: Spinal pain is common in people with type 1 and 2 DM, resulting in considerable consequences for work/leisure activities, sick-leave, and healthcare utilisation as compared to the general population.</p

To rest or to compete?:A 4-week cohort study of analgesic use and willingness to compete hurt in Danish youth elite athletes

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between analgesic use and willingness to compete hurt (WCH) in Danish youth elite athletes, and to explore factors associated with such willingness.DESIGN: 4-week prospective cohort study.METHODS: 592 Danish youth elite athletes (15-20 years) completed a baseline questionnaire assessing demographic information, sport history, and WCH, and provided weekly reports on analgesic use for 4 weeks via text messages. Analgesic use was categorized as no use (0 weeks) or use across 1, 2, 3, or 4 weeks, and as the total number of days with analgesic use. Multinomial logistic regression and zero-inflated negative binomial regression analyses estimated the association between analgesic use and WCH. Linear backward stepwise regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with WCH.RESULTS: Overall, risk of analgesic use increased significantly with increasing WCH scores (relative risk ratios ranging from 1.06 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.12%) to 1.34% (95% CI 1.15 to 1.57)). The incidence rate of analgesic use increased significantly with increasing WCH scores (incidence rate ratio 1.09 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.14)). Associations between the investigated possible antecedent factors and WCH were weak and not considered practically important (R 2 = 0.05 or lower). CONCLUSIONS: Higher WCH scores were associated with increasing risk of analgesic use, irrespective of the underlying reason for the use, in Danish youth elite athletes, suggesting that analgesics may be an ingrained part of a sport-specific culture of risk acceptance. Future studies should include measures of culture, norms, and social interaction to better explain the variance in WCH.</p

Paracetamol for low back pain: the state of the research field

Introduction: Paracetamol is one of the most frequently used analgesics for people with low back pain, but despite its frequent use there is still debate regarding its efficacy and safety for this indication. Areas covered: We describe the origin of paracetamol and its proposed mechanisms of action. We focus in on low back pain and describe the evidence it has on the efficacy of paracetamol (taken by patients orally) and current insights on its side-effects. When searching for relevant publications we focused mainly on recent Cochrane reviews and published RCTs. We found that there is increasing evidence that shows paracetamol is not more effective than placebo in patients with acute low back pain. Concerning patients with subacute and chronic back pain, the evidence for or against the efficacy of paracetamol vs placebo is lacking and would need more research. Expert opinion: We argue that we still need better evidence on the efficacy of paracetamol for acute and chronic back pain. Until that evidence becomes available paracetamol should still be considered as an option for patients with back pain. However, we suggest that a strategy focusing on nonpharmacological management as the first treatment option in low back pain may be equally effective with less side effects

Do neurosurgeons subscribe to the guideline lumbosacral radicular syndrome?

Background: This study presents a survey of the opinion of neurosurgeons on the multidisciplinary clinical guideline 'lumbosacral radicular syndrome'. The aim was to describe to what extent neurosurgeons in the Netherlands endorse the content of this guideline. The guideline was issued in 1996 by the Netherlands Institute of Quality Health Care and this is the first attempt to evaluate the implementation of this guideline. Methods: All active neurosurgeons (n=92) in the Netherlands were invited to complete a questionnaire investigating to what extent they agree with the 26 recommendations in the guideline 'lumbosacral radicular syndrome'. The results are represented in frequencies (%) in order to express the magnitude of their consent or dissent with the recommendations. Results: Overall, 75% of the neurosurgeons responded and, of these, 94% agreed (at least partially) with the content of the guideline. Of the 26 recommendations in the guideline, seven were not fully endorsed by the neurosurgeons. Three of these seven recommendations may need revision based on newly published data. Conclusion: This survey shows that almost all neurosurgeons subscribed (at least partially) to the multidisciplinary LRS guideline. Therefore, one important aspect of the implementation process has been fulfilled, i.e. acceptance of the content of the guideline

Adverse effects of extra-articular corticosteroid injections: A systematic review

Background. To estimate the occurrence and type of adverse effects after application of an extra-articular (soft tissue) corticosteroid injection. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was made based on a PubMed and Embase search covering the period 1956 to January 2010. Case reports were included, as were prospective and retrospective studies that reported adverse events of corticosteroid injection. All clinical trials which used extra-articular corticosteroid injections were examined. We divided the reported adverse events into major (defined as those needing intervention or not disappearing) and minor ones (transient, not requiring intervention). Results. The search yielded 87 relevant studies:44 case reports, 37 prospective studies and 6 retrospective studies. The major adverse events included osteomyelitis and protothecosis; one fatal necrotizing fasciitis; cellulitis and ecchymosis; tendon ruptures; atrophy of the plantar fat was described after injecting a neuroma; and local skin effects appeared as atrophy, hypopigmentation or as skin defect. The minor adverse events effects ranged from skin rash to flushing and disturbed menstrual pattern. Increased pain or steroid flare after injection was reported in 19 studies. After extra-articular injection, the incidence of major adverse events ranged from 0-5.8% and that of minor adverse events from 0-81%. It was not feasible to pool the risk for adverse effects due to heterogeneity of study populations and difference in interventions and variance in reporting. Conclusion. In this literature review it was difficult to accurately quantify the incidence of adverse effects after extra-articular corticosteroid injection. The reported adverse events were relatively mild, although one fatal reaction was reported

Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Differences in Patient Characteristics, Number of Treatments, and Recovery Rates Between Referred and Self-referred Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain in Manual Therapy:A Secondary Analysis

Objective: In various countries, patients can visit a physiotherapist via self-referral. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether there are differences between individuals with nonspecific neck pain who consult a manual therapist via self-referral and those who do so via referral by a physician concerning patient characteristics, number of treatments, and recovery; and whether (self-)referral is associated with recovery. Methods: This study is part of a prospective cohort study with posttreatment and 12-month follow-up in a Dutch manual-therapy setting. Adult patients with nonspecific neck pain were eligible for participation. Baseline measurements included demographic data and data concerning neck pain. At follow-up, number of treatments, recovery, and satisfaction were assessed. To evaluate differences between the groups, we used the χ2 test and the independent t test. A logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between referral status and recovery. Results: In total, 272 manual therapists participated and 1311 patients were included. Of 831 patients whose referral data are available, about half patients consulted a manual therapist by self-referral. The mean number of treatments was 5.4, which did not differ between the 2 groups. We found no differences between the groups concerning age, sex, pain intensity at baseline, or recovery rate. Patients in the self-referral group experienced acute neck pain more frequently, had recurrent complaints more often, and reported less disability compared to the referred group. Referral status was not associated with recovery. Conclusion: We found several small differences between self-referred and referred patients