Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Pain Physician ; 19(2): E245-82, 2016 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26815254

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain is frustrating to treat. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy are techniques which can treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.Percutaneous adhesiolysis is performed by placing the catheter into the tissue plane at the ventrolateral aspect of the foramen so that medications can be injected. Adhesiolysis is used both for pain caused by scarring which is not resistant to catheter placement and other sources of pain, including inflammation in the absence of scarring.Mechanical lysis of scars with a catheter may or may not be necessary for percutaneous adhesiolysis to be effective. Spinal endoscopy allows direct visualization of the epidural space and has the possibility to use laser energy to treat pathology. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. METHODS: The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in treating persistent low back and leg pain was reviewed. The quality of each article used in this analysis was assessed. The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale from strong, based upon multiple randomized controlled trials to weak, based upon consensus, as developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by ASIPP. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief of at least 50% and functional improvement of at least 40% were the primary outcome measures. Short-term efficacy was defined as improvement of 6 months or less; whereas, long-term efficacy was defined more than 6 months. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 45 studies were identified. Of these, for percutaneous adhesiolysis there were 7 randomized controlled trials and 3 observational studies which met the inclusion criteria. For spinal endoscopy, there was one randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. Based upon 7 randomized controlled trials showing efficacy, with no negative trials, there is Level I or strong evidence of the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Based upon one high-quality randomized controlled trial, there is Level II to III evidence supporting the use of spinal endoscopy in treating chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. CONCLUSION: The evidence is Level I or strong that percutaneous adhesiolysis is efficacious in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Percutaneous adhesiolysis may be considered as a first-line treatment for chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. The evidence is Level II to III that spinal endoscopy is effective in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. KEY WORDS: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, post lumbar surgery syndrome, epidural scarring, adhesiolysis, endoscopy, radicular pain.


Subject(s)
Analgesics/administration & dosage , Endoscopy/methods , Low Back Pain/drug therapy , Pain Management/methods , Catheterization/methods , Chronic Disease , Epidural Space , Humans , Lower Extremity , Lumbosacral Region/surgery
2.
Pain Physician ; 18(6): E939-1004, 2015 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26606031

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. METHODS: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level III for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level III in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level III with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence. CONCLUSION: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions.


Subject(s)
Analgesics/administration & dosage , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Low Back Pain/drug therapy , Pain Management/methods , Anesthesia, Epidural/methods , Anesthesia, Spinal/methods , Chronic Pain/diagnosis , Chronic Pain/epidemiology , Humans , Injections, Epidural , Intervertebral Disc Displacement/diagnosis , Intervertebral Disc Displacement/drug therapy , Intervertebral Disc Displacement/epidemiology , Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Low Back Pain/epidemiology , Radiculopathy/diagnosis , Radiculopathy/drug therapy , Radiculopathy/epidemiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Spinal Stenosis/diagnosis , Spinal Stenosis/drug therapy , Spinal Stenosis/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
3.
Drugs Today (Barc) ; 39(3): 175-92, 2003 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12730702

ABSTRACT

Homocyst(e)ine is a novel risk factor in vascular disease. First observations of vascular lesions in children with high blood homocyst(e)ine levels due to severe inborn enzyme deficiencies led to the hypothesis that elevated blood homocyst(e)ine levels might be a risk factor for vascular disease. A substantial body of evidence on the role of the homocyst(e)ine in the development of coronary and carotid artery disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis and other disorders has been accumulated over the last 30 years. Cross-sectional and case-control studies provide initial and the strongest support for the hypothesis, followed by results from the prospective cohorts. Infrequent cases of homozygous mutations of the key enzymes in the homocyst(e)ine metabolism chain are able to produce extreme homocyst(e)inemia and early vascular lesions. More frequently, heterozygous enzyme mutations and deficiencies of folate and vitamins B6 and B12 cause mild to moderate homocyst(e)inemia, which is still strongly associated with the increased risk of vascular events. Elevated homocyst(e)ine levels may be effectively managed with adequate folate, B12 and B6 intake in doses comparable to or above FDA recommendations. Whether correction of elevated homocyst(e)ine levels with vitamins is helpful in prevention and treatment of vascular events remains unknown and is under investigation in ongoing clinical trials (VISP, VITATOPS). No consensus on homocyst(e)ine management is available at the present time.


Subject(s)
Diet , Homocysteine/metabolism , Vascular Diseases , Adult , Aged , Avitaminosis/complications , Child , Female , Homocysteine/blood , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Factors , Vascular Diseases/etiology , Vascular Diseases/genetics , Vascular Diseases/therapy
4.
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep ; 2(1): 31-7, 2002 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-11898580

ABSTRACT

Stroke is one of leading causes of mortality and morbidity in the United States. Stroke prevention includes treatment of the stroke risk factors and long-term use of antithrombotic agents. Various agents have been studied for stroke prevention and other trials are ongoing. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the recent guidelines, recommendations, and clinical trial results using antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Stroke/prevention & control , Humans , Ischemic Attack, Transient/complications , Secondary Prevention , Stroke/etiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...