Infrared therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to assess the degree of pain relief obtained by applying infrared (IR) energy to the low back in patients with chronic, intractable low back pain. METHODS: Forty patients with chronic low back pain of over six years' duration were recruited from patients attending the Rothbart Pain Management Clinic, North York, Ontario. They came from the patient lists of three physicians at the clinic, and were randomly assigned to IR therapy or placebo treatment. One patient dropped out of the placebo group; as a result, 21 patients received IR therapy and 18 received placebo therapy. The IR therapy was provided by two small, portable units in a sturdy waistband powered by small, rechargeable batteries made by MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc (Canada). These units met safety standards for Food and Drug Administration portability, and are registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a therapeutic device. The unit converted electricity to IR energy at 800 nm to 1200 nm wavelength. The treated group received IR therapy. The placebo group had identical units, but the power was not connected to the circuit-board within the IR pad. Patients attended seven weekly sessions. One baseline and six weekly sets of values were recorded. The principle measure of outcome was pain rated on the numerical rating scale (NRS). The pain was assessed overall, then rotating and bending in different directions. RESULTS: The mean NRS scores in the treatment group fell from 6.9 of 10 to 3 of 10 at the end of the study. The mean NRS in the placebo group fell from 7.4 of 10 to 6 of 10. CONCLUSION: The IR therapy unit used was demonstrated to be effective in reducing chronic low back pain, and no adverse effects were observed.

A randomized treatment study to compare the efficacy of repeated nerve blocks with cognitive therapy for control of chronic head and neck pain.

This prospective study compared the efficacy of two antinociceptive modalities: nerve blocks and cognitive therapy. A consecutive series of patients receiving nerve block therapy was invited to take part in a six-week randomized comparison of nerve blocks and cognitive therapy. Sixty-eight of 102 patients approached by telephone agreed to participate. Patients attended eight weekly treatment sessions. Baseline and seven weekly sets of values were recorded. The principal measure of outcome was the Pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The secondary measures were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Activities of Daily Living as measured on the Primary Care Cooperative Information Project/World Organization of National Colleges, Academies (COOP-WONCA) scale. Within the first week, one patient of 34 in the nerve block group withdrew and 12 of 34 in the cognitive therapy group withdrew from the study. After seven weeks, 33 patients in the nerve block group remained in the trial, but only 21 patients completed the questionnaires. Four of 22 patients in the cognitive therapy group completed the trial and their questionnaires. Mean VAS scores in the nerve block group dropped slightly during treatment. Mean VAS scores in the cognitive therapy group rose during the trial. However, the mean VAS score of the remaining four in the last week was below the initial group mean. Patients who had been receiving nerve blocks proved willing to remain in the study if allocated to the nerve block group and unwilling to remain in the cognitive therapy group while foregoing their accustomed treatment.