Acute Cervical Radiculopathy Outcomes: Soft Disc Herniations vs Osteophytes.

OBJECTIVE: Prospectively evaluate the clinical outcomes of acute cervical radiculopathy with respect to soft disc herniations vs osteophytes. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients who had had cervical radiculopathy for ≤1 month were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria were radicular pain greater than axial pain and a pain score ≥4 out of 10 on a numerical rating scale. Patients had at least one positive clinical finding: motor, sensory, or reflex changes. Plain films and magnetic resonance imaging were ordered. Follow-up was at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months. Outcomes included pain scores (neck and upper limb), neck disability index, medication use, opioid use, and need for surgery. Two attending musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed imaging findings for osteophytes vs soft disc herniations at the symptomatic level. RESULTS: More than 75% reduction in pain was seen in 77% of patients with soft disc herniations and 66% of patients with osteophytes (P > 0.05) at 12 months. A pain score ≤2 out of 10 within 6 to 12 months was seen in 86% of patients with soft disc herniations and 81% of patients with osteophytes (P > 0.05). Moderate or marked improvement at 12 months was seen in 85% of patients with soft discs and 77% of patients with osteophytes (P > 0.05). Baseline-to-12-month numerical rating scale pain scores of patients with soft discs vs osteophytes had overlapping confidence intervals at each follow-up. At 12 months, very few had undergone surgery (7% of patients with soft discs, 11% of patients with osteophytes; P > 0.05) or were on opioids (7% of patients with soft discs, 9% of patients with osteophytes; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients, but not all patients, with acute radiculopathies improved with time. This was seen with both soft disc herniations and osteophytes.

Polypharmacy and the role of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing practices lead to higher rates of mortality and morbidity, particularly in vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and those with complex medical conditions. Physical medicine and physiatrists face particular challenges given the array of symptoms treated across a spectrum of conditions. This clinical review focuses on polypharmacy and the associated issue of potentially inappropriate prescribing. The article begins with a review of polypharmacy along with relevant aspects of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the elderly. The adverse effects and potential hazards of selected medications commonly initiated and managed by rehabilitation specialists are then discussed with specific attention to pain medications, neurostimulants, antipsychotics, antidepressants, antispasmodics, sleep medications, and antiepileptics. Of particular concern is the notion that an adverse effect of one medication can mimic an indication for another and lead to a prescribing cascade and further adverse medication events. Appropriate prescribing practices mandate an accurate, current medication list, yet errors and inaccuracies often plague such lists. The evidence to support explicit (medications to avoid) and implicit (how to evaluate) criteria is presented along with the role of physicians and patients in prescribing medications. A brief discussion of "medication debridement" or de-prescribing strategies follows. In the last section, we draw on the essence of physiatry as a team-based endeavor to discuss the potential benefits of collaboration. In working to optimize medication prescribing, efforts should be made to collaborate not only with pharmacists and other medical specialties but with members of inpatient rehabilitation teams as well.