Immune-mediated resolution of a herniated lumbar disc prolapse aided by motor control exercises-a case report.

Low back pain is the global leading cause of disability. Herniated intervertebral discs are a common cause of lower back pain. The natural history of the herniated intervertebral disc is that it can resorb spontaneously through an immune-mediated mechanism. Despite this favourable natural history, there is an increasing reliance on surgical intervention. A 64-year-old presented with a left L3/4 disc prolapse. With reassurance, simple analgesics, and motor control exercises, the MRI scan confirmed the complete resolution of the disc prolapse within 3 months. Patients with disc prolapses should be reassured that disc prolapses will naturally resolve and advised to remain active. Surgical intervention should only be considered with the presence of red flags, progressive neurology, or when clear evidence exists that all non-interventional techniques have been exhausted. With such a favourable natural history, caution should be exercised before surgical intervention is recommended.

Use of orthotics with orthotic sandals versus the sole use of orthotics for plantar fasciitis: Randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Plantar fasciitis (PF) affects around 10% of the population. Prefabricated orthotics with arch support has been shown to provide symptom relief in PF by decreasing the repetitive stress sustained by the plantar fascia. However, prefabricated orthotics are only effective when shoes are worn, meaning the foot may be left unsupported when it is impractical to wear shoes. Using orthotic sandals in conjunction with prefabricated orthotics may increase PF symptom relief, as they can be worn inside the home, extending the period in which the foot is supported. AIM: To compare the combined use of prefabricated orthotics and orthotic sandals vs the sole use of prefabricated orthotics in the treatment of PF. METHODS: 98 participants with PF were randomised into two groups. The intervention group received the Aetrex L420 Compete orthotics and the Aetrex L3000 Maui Flips (orthotic sandals), whilst the control group received the Aetrex L420 Compete orthotics only. Foot pain was assessed both by the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the pain sub-scale of the foot health status questionnaire (FHSQ). Foot functionality was measured using the function sub-scale of the FHSQ. Symptom change was measured using the global rating of change scale (GROC). RESULTS: Foot pain scores measured both by NRS and FHSQ pain sub-scale showed statistically significant reductions in foot pain in both groups (P < 0.05) at six months. Both groups also reported statistically significant improvements (P < 0.05) in function as measured by the FHSQ function subscale and improvement of symptoms as measured by the GROC scale. Between-group analysis showed that the intervention group with the combined use of orthotics and orthotic sandals scored better on all four outcome measures as compared to the control group with the sole use of orthotics. However, the between-group analysis only reached statistical significance on the NRS pain score (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Combined use of prefabricated orthotics and orthotic sandals provides a greater decrease in foot pain and improvement in foot function in PF compared to using prefabricated orthotics alone.

Does orthotics use improve comfort, speed, and injury rate during running? A randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Running is a hugely popular sport. Unfortunately, running-related injury (RRI) rates are high, particularly amongst amateur and recreational runners. Finding ways to reduce RRI rates and maximise comfort and performance for runners is important. Evidence regarding whether orthotics can successfully improve these parameters is limited and contradicting. Further research is required to provide runners with clearer guidance on the usefulness of orthotics. AIM: To investigate the effect of Aetrex Orthotics on comfort, speed and RRI rates during recreational running. METHODS: One hundred and six recreational runners were recruited on a voluntary basis via running clubs and social media pages and randomised into either the intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention group ran with Aetrex L700 Speed Orthotics inserted in their usual running shoes, whilst participants in the control group ran in their usual running shoes with no orthotics. The study ran for an 8-wk period. Participants provided data relating to running comfort, distance, and time during weeks 3-6. Participants provided data relating to any RRIs they sustained during all 8 wks. Running distance and time were used to calculate running speed in miles per hour (mph). For each outcome variable, 95% confidence intervals and P values were calculated to assess the statistical significance between the groups. For comfort and speed data, univariate multi-level analysis was performed, and for outcome variables with significant between group differences, multi-level multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate any confounding effects of gender and age. RESULTS: Ninety-four participants were included in the final analysis (drop-out rate = 11%). Comfort and speed from 940 runs and 978 injury data reports were analysed. Participants who ran with orthotics reported, on average, speeds 0.30 mph faster (P = 0.20) and comfort scores 1.27 points higher (P ≤ 0.001) than participants who ran with no orthotics. They were also 2.22 times less likely to sustain an injury (P = 0.08) than participants who ran with no orthotics. However, findings were only significant for comfort and not for speed or injury rates. Age and gender were found to be significant predictors of comfort. However, the improvements in comfort reported by participants who ran with orthotics were still significant after adjusting for age and gender. CONCLUSION: This study found orthotics to improve comfort and speed and prevent RRIs whilst running. However, these findings were only statistically significant for comfort.

Unnecessary Cervical Discectomy - A simple test to differentiate between Cervical and Shoulder Pathology: A Case Report.

Background: Diagnostic dilemma exists in differentiating between neck and shoulder pathology, as both can give a rise to shoulder and arm symptoms. In addition, the hypersensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans may wrongly highlight non-clinically significant changes as potential targets for surgical intervention. The arm- squeeze test is a recognised recognized method used to help differentiate pathology arising from the shoulder or the neck. Performing this test preoperatively may prevent needless surgical intervention when diagnostic difficulties exist, even when MRI scans are not helpful. Case Presentation: We report the case of a 41-year-old male who initially presented with numbness and pins and needles in both arms. Following clinical review and an MRI scan of the cervical spine, the patient underwent an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Unfortunately, there was no relief of symptoms following surgery. A post- operative clinical review identified the shoulder as a potential cause of the symptoms. Conclusion: The arm- squeeze test is not popular and is not routinely used in shoulder and cervical spine examinations. However, it is recommended by National Institute for health and care excellence to help differentiate between neck and shoulder pathology, and, hence, dissemination of this information is vital.

Does orthotics use improve comfort, speed and injury rate during running? Preliminary analysis of a randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of using orthotics in improving comfort, increasing running speed and helping to reduce injury rate during running is limited and mixed. Alongside the increasing popularity of running is the increasing rate of running-related injuries (RRIs). Further research into whether orthotics could be used to help reduce RRIs would be highly beneficial for those affected. Additionally, there is a need to clarify whether orthotics use increases comfort during running and helps improve running speed. AIM: To investigate whether running with Aetrex Orthotics improves comfort and performance and reduces injury whilst running. METHODS: Runners were recruited on a voluntary basis if they were 18 or older with no serious health conditions, ongoing foot pain or deformity, previous foot surgery in their lifetime or any surgery in the past 6 mo. Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. All participants were asked to complete runs and provide quantitative data regarding comfort during running, running time and distance, and any RRIs over an 8-wk study period. Participants in the intervention group ran with Aetrex L700 Speed Orthotics, whilst participants in the control group ran without orthotics. Other than the addition of orthotics for participants in the intervention group, all participants were asked to run as they usually would. This report presents preliminary data from the first 47 participants recruited for this study. Running speed was calculated from running distance and time and given in miles per hour. For each outcome variable, the mean for each group, effect size and 95% confidence interval were calculated, and a t-test was performed to determine if between-group differences were statistically significant. RESULTS: Data for all three primary outcomes was provided from a total of 254 runs by the 23 participants in the intervention group and a total of 289 runs by the 24 participants in the control group. Participants in the intervention group reported higher comfort scores (8.00 ± 1.41 vs 6.96 ± 2.03, P ≤ 0.0001), faster running speeds (6.27 ± 1.03 vs 6.00 ± 1.54, P = 0.013), and lower RRI rates (0.70 ± 1.01 vs 1.21 ± 1.53, P = 0.18) than those in the control group. These findings were statistically significant for comfort and running speed but not for RRI rate, with statistical significance considered if P < 0.05. No adjustments were made for group differences in age, gender, tendency for RRIs or usual running speed. CONCLUSION: This preliminary report provides evidence for orthotics use in increasing comfort levels and running speed, but no significant difference in RRI rate.

Spinal fusion surgery - the need to follow the 'BRAN' toolkit (benefits, risks, alternatives, nothing): a case report.

Failed back surgery syndrome is defined as increased or persistent pain following spinal surgery. Despite a relatively high incidence of failed back surgery syndrome (20%), patients may not be counselled regarding this complication pre-operatively. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has provided the Benefits, Risks, Alternatives and doing Nothing Toolkit to guide clinical discussions during the consent process. A 46-year-old female experiencing chronic lower back pain since 2003 suffered an exacerbation in 2015. Imaging identified non-compressive disc bulges . She was not put through the low back pain pathway as recommended by NICE and underwent spinal fusion in 2017. She continues to experience severe pain 54 months postsurgery. When considering spinal surgery, the risk of failed back surgery syndrome should be discussed with patients. Both clinicians and patients can use the BRAN toolkit to ensure open and transparent discussion prior to any intervention.

Should iterative spinal surgeries be performed? A case report.

The number of spinal surgeries performed is increasing. Along with this comes an increase in iterative surgeries. Each surgery that a patient undergoes has an increased risk of complication and a decreased success rate compared to the last. We present a case of a 51-year-old female who continues to experience debilitating low back pain following three double fusions performed over four years. The patient describes that she is in more pain now than before any previous surgical intervention. Following these surgeries, the patient has been forced to take early retirement, frequently uses a wheelchair and requires assistance with daily activities. The role of iterative surgery in healthcare needs to be re-assessed. The poor outcomes, especially following tertiary and quaternary surgery, question the use of iterative surgery entirely.

Failed knee replacement: incorrect indication?

A 52-year-old woman sustained a direct soft tissue injury to the right knee following a fall onto the right knee. X-rays did not identify any bony injury. Physiotherapy decreased pain but instability persisted. MRI scans identified early degeneration. An orthopaedic opinion recommended total knee replacement. Following a total knee replacement, the pain has worsened and she remains functionally impaired 2 years following the surgical intervention. Knee replacements are commonly performed successful surgical interventions. The increased numbers of replacements might be due to the lowered threshold in recommending surgical intervention by health professionals. This may increase the failure rate. It also raises the question whether adequate non-operative measures were attempted?

Venous thromboembolism prevention post neck of femur fractures - does it make a difference?

Neck of femur fractures predispose patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE). NICE has issued guideline 46 to reduce this risk through the use of antithrombic agents. We audited our department's VTE practise by reviewing the clinical notes of 123 consecutive patients with no exclusions. We found our compliance to be a low 6%. We also found that patients were likely to be given low molecular heparin (LMWH) only during their hospital stay. Reasons for the low adherence were probably secondary to confusion caused by the multiple thromboprophylaxis protocols used in our department. The correlation between duration of heparin administration and length of hospital stay was due to logistical difficulty in administering VTE prophylaxis out of hospital setting.