Differential Diagnosis. II. Psychogenic Pain

Permanent paraparesis and cauda equina syndrome after epidural blood patch for postdural puncture headache.

Back and neck pain and poor sleep quality in adolescents are associated even after controlling for confounding factors: An epidemiological study.

The evidence gap in low back pain management strategies – Authors' reply

Women with diastasis recti abdominis might have weaker abdominal muscles and more abdominal pain, but no higher prevalence of pelvic floor disorders, low back and pelvic girdle pain than women without diastasis recti abdominis

Subcutaneous Stimulation as an Additional Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Lower Limb Pain and/or Back Pain: A Feasibility Study

Background: Low back pain after either post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis in the absence of surgery is a vexing problem. Post lumbar surgery syndrome can occur in any age group, while low back and radicular pain from spinal stenosis is a disease of aging. As the population ages, the incidence of symptomatic spinal stenosis will increase. There are currently limited treatment options for either group. Further surgery is not uniformly effective in relieving pain after previous surgery. While therapies are being developed to treat pain due to spinal stenosis, no therapy other than adhesiolysis will treat pain due to scarring. Adhesiolysis was developed as a means of removing epidural scarring leading directly or indirectly to compression, inflammation, swelling, or a decreased nutritional supply of nerve roots. Adhesiolysis utilizes a number of modalities in the effort to break up epidural scarring, including the use of a wirebound catheter for mechanical adhesiolysis, placement of the catheter in the ventro-lateral aspect of the epidural space at the site of the exiting nerve root, and the use of high volumes of injectate, including local anesthetics and saline, either hypertonic or isotonic, along with steroids. Study Design: A systematic review of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. The severity of risks and adverse events associated with percutaneous adhesiolysis were also evaluated. Methods: The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis for the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief of at least 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, change in psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid use or interventions. Results: For this systematic review, 15 studies were identified and selected for review. Of these, 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Applying the USPSTF criteria, these studies indicate that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain caused by post lumbar surgery syndrome and that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/ or leg pain caused by spinal stenosis The incidence of complications from percutaneous adhesiolysis is low and the complications are generally minimal and self-limited. The procedure should be considered to be low risk for serious adverse events when performed by well-trained physicians. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. Conclusion: In summary, there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, leg pain, adhesiolysis, Racz procedure, post lumbar surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis

BackgroundLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) may be a relevant comorbidity when managing people with low back or pelvic girdle pain. It is unknown how often physiotherapists inquire about LUTS, and what the potential barriers and facilitators are to inquire about LUTS in this patient population. ObjectiveTo explore the frequency of inquiring about LUTS, and to identify the barriers and facilitators among physiotherapists with and without additional pelvic health training to ask for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic girdle pain. DesignA qualitative study using thematic analysis. MethodsThrough purposeful sampling, 29 primary care physiotherapists were interviewed (16 physiotherapists and 13 physiotherapists with additional pelvic health training). Thematic analysis was performed to identify themes regarding facilitators and barriers. FindingsThe frequency of inquiring about LUTS was: ‘never’: 10%, ‘sometimes’: 38%, and ‘always’: 52%. Four barriers were identified: (1) lack of knowledge of the physiotherapist, (2) a standardised assessment approach which did not include LUTS, (3) patient expectations assumed by the physiotherapist, and (4) social, cultural and personal barriers. Three facilitators were identified: (1) communication skills and experience of the physiotherapist, (2) education and knowledge, and (3) interprofessional consultation and referral. ConclusionThe majority of physiotherapists surveyed in this study regularly asked for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic pain. For when not asked, the identified barriers seem modifiable with adequate training, knowledge and skill acquisition, and sound clinical reasoning.

BackgroundAlthough results of case series support the use of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant low back pain, no confirmatory randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in this patient group to date. PROMISE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management with optimal medical management alone in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and predominant low back pain.Method/DesignPatients will be recruited in approximately 30 centers across Canada, Europe, and the United States. Eligible patients with low back pain exceeding leg pain and an average Numeric Pain Rating Scale score ≥5 for low back pain will be randomized 1:1 to spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management or to optimal medical management alone. The investigators will tailor individual optimal medical management treatment plans to their patients. Excluded from study treatments are intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation, back surgery related to the original back pain complaint, and experimental therapies. Patients randomized to the spinal cord stimulation group will undergo trial stimulation, and if they achieve adequate low back pain relief a neurostimulation system using the Specify® 5-6-5 multi-column lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) will be implanted to capture low back pain preferentially in these patients. Outcome assessment will occur at baseline (pre-randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post randomization. After the 6-month visit, patients can change treatment to that received by the other randomized group. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in low back pain at the 6-month visit. Additional outcomes include changes in low back and leg pain, functional disability, health-related quality of life, return to work, healthcare utilization including medication usage, and patient satisfaction. Data on adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Healthcare use data will be used to assess costs and long-term cost-effectiveness.DiscussionRecruitment began in January 2013 and will continue until 2016.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01697358 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

Work posture, working conditions and musculoskeletal outcomes in agricultural workers

The effect of exercise in prevention of low back and pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy is uncertain. This study aimed to assess the effect of exercise on low back pain, pelvic girdle pain and associated sick leave. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, ResearchGate and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from their inception through May 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in the review if they compared an exercise intervention with usual daily activities and at least some of the participants were free from low back pain and/or pelvic girdle pain at baseline. Methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Eleven randomized controlled trials (2347 pregnant women) qualified for meta-analyses. Exercise reduced the risk of low back pain in pregnancy by 9% (pooled risk ratio (RR)=0.91, 95% CI 0.83-0.99, I2 =0%, seven trials, N=1175), whereas it had no protective effect on pelvic girdle pain (RR=0.99, CI 0.81-1.21, I2 =0%, four RCTs, N=565) or lumbopelvic pain (RR=0.96, CI 0.90-1.02, I2 =0%, eight RCTs, N=1737). Furthermore, exercise prevented new episodes of sick leave due to lumbopelvic pain (RR=0.79, CI 0.64-0.99, I2 =0%, three RCTs, N=1168). There was no evidence of publication bias. Exercise appears to reduce the risk of low back pain in pregnant women, and sick leave because of lumbopelvic pain, but there is no clear evidence for an effect on pelvic girdle pain. Exercise has a small protective effect against low back pain during pregnancy.

Musculoskeletal changes occur during pregnancy; one-half of pregnant women experienced low back pain and/or pelvic pain during pregnancy. Prescription opioid use for Medicaid enrolled pregnant women has increased dramatically due to severe low back pain/pelvic pain. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of low back pain/pelvic pain and related risk factors among a broader population. This is a retrospective cohort study. This study utilized de-identified Medicaid claims data provided by the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, including individuals who gave birth between 2016 and 2021 during pregnancy. Low back pain/pelvic pain and a group of musculoskeletal risk factors were identified with International Classification of Diseases v10. Comparisons were made for the prevalence of low back pain and pelvic pain between those with pregnancy-related musculoskeletal risk and those without. Among 167,396 pregnancies, 65.6% were affected by musculoskeletal risk factors. The overall prevalence of low back pain was 15.6%, and of pregnancy-related pelvic pain was 25.2%. The overall prevalence for either low back pain or pelvic pain was 33.3% (increased from 29.5% in 2016 to 35.3% in 2021), with 24.6% being pregnancy-induced. Pregnancies with musculoskeletal risk factors were more likely to be diagnosed with low back pain (20.7% versus 5.7%, p < 0.001) or pelvic pain (35.3% versus 6.0%, p < 0.001) than those without. This study found a very high prevalence of musculoskeletal risk and a high prevalence of low back pain or pelvic pain, with an increasing trend, among South Carolina pregnancies enrolled in Medicaid during the period 2016-2021. Most of the diagnosed low back pain or pelvic pain were pregnancy induced. Musculoskeletal risk factors were associated with low back pain or pelvic pain.

Musculoskeletal problems have become endemic in agricultural work. The workers often complain about pain in various parts of the body while performing agricultural activities. The results revealed that during land preparation, sowing, irrigation most of the males and female agricultural workers reported very severe to severe pain in lower back and moderate pain in other body parts viz. neck, shoulder, upper arm, palm/fingers, upper back and thighs. In the activity of sowing, due to frequent changes in posture and continuous movement, 75 per cent of females and half of the male respondents reported pain. percentage of women reporting musculoskeletal problems in plant protection activity were less but 70 per cent of males reported very severe to moderate pain in neck, shoulders and upper arms as the act of spraying required considerable strength. While weeding activity all females experienced severe pain in lower back. In harvesting activity male and female agricultural workers experienced severe to very severe pain in upper arms, shoulders, neck, thighs and lower back because of the repetitive motion of the body part and the heavy loads, which they carried. The data of musculoskeletal problems during the activity of threshing indicated that the respondents perceived very severe to moderate pain in upper back, shoulders, upper arms and lower back although the intensity varied. Body Part Discomfort Score (BPDS) of the male and female respondents engaged in the agricultural activities reveal that it was highest in the activity of weeding followed by the activity of land preparation and the next in order were threshing, harvesting, irrigation and use of chemicals. The Overall Discomfort Rating scores shows that all the activities were in the range of ‘high discomfort’ both for males and females except irrigation in which the Overall Discomfort Rating scores were in the range of ‘moderate discomfort’ and the ODR of females in case of plant protection activity was in the range of ‘light discomfort’.

To determine whether adding hip treatment to usual care for low back pain (LBP) improved disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. Randomized controlled trial. Seventy-six participants (age, 18 years or older; Oswestry Disability Index, 20% or greater; numeric pain-rating scale, 2 or more points) with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment were randomly assigned to a group that received treatment to the lumbar spine only (LBO group) (n = 39) or to one that received both lumbar spine and hip treatments (LBH group) (n = 37). The individual treating clinicians decided which specific low back treatments to administer to the LBO group. Treatments aimed at the hip (LBH group) included manual therapy, exercise, and education, selected by the therapist from a predetermined set of treatments. Primary outcomes were disability and pain, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and the numeric pain-rating scale, respectively, at baseline, 2 weeks, discharge, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs (work and physical activity subscales of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), global rating of change, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and physical activity level. We used mixed-model 2-by-3 analyses of variance to examine group-by-time interaction effects (intention-to-treat analysis). Data were available for 68 patients at discharge (LBH group, n = 33; LBO group, n = 35) and 48 at 12 months (n = 24 for both groups). There were no between-group differences in disability at discharge (-5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.9, 0.89; P = .09), 12 months (-1.0; 95% CI: -4.44, 2.35; P = .54), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in pain at discharge (-0.2; 95% CI: -1.03, 0.53; P = .53), 12 months (0.1; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.72; P = .76), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in secondary outcomes, except for higher Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (work subscale) scores in the LBH group at 2 weeks (-3.35; 95% CI: -6.58, -0.11; P = .04) and discharge (-3.45; 95% CI: - 6.30, -0.61; P = .02). Adding treatments aimed at the hip to usual low back physical therapy did not provide additional short- or long-term benefits in reducing disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. Clinicians may not need to include hip treatments to achieve reductions in low back disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(12):581-601. Epub 16 Nov 2021. 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10593.

Back pain and leg complaints that revealed non–small cell carcinoma: a case study

Comparisons of Body Awareness, Physical, and Cognitive Components and Relationships in Patients with Chronic Neck, Back, and Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.