Multicenter cross-sectional study of the clinical features and types of treatment of spinal cord-related pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: We termed chronic neuropathic pain (NeP) in patients with diseases associated with spinal cord damage as "spinal cord-related pain syndrome". We conducted a survey of patients with the syndrome to assess the type and severity of NeP and its effect on QOL, and treatment modalities. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 185 patients recruited from 15 medical institutions. We analyzed the questionnaires sent to clinicians (basic information, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, type and effectiveness of medications) and patients [modified Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) and short form (SF)-36 healthy survey]. RESULTS: The incidence of spinal cord-related pain syndrome was highest in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) and spinal cord injury. The number of patients with at-level pain was higher than those with below-level pain; dysesthesia/paresthesia, spontaneous and evoked pain types were mainly seen in patients with at-level pain and dysesthesia/paresthesia was common among those with below-level pain. NPSI score was higher than 10 in the majority of patients, and the subscore for dysesthesia/paresthesia was significantly the highest. The NPSI score was the highest in patients with severe hyperintense signal increase on MRI. The scores of all SF-36 sub-items were significantly lower than the national average. The majority of patients used non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentin/pregabalin; the latter was significantly effective for allodynia, compared with other medications, regardless of the pain level. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with spinal cord-related pain syndrome suffered from severe NeP, which affected physical activity. The pain phenotype varied according to the level of the lesion and dysesthesia/paresthesia was the most intense. Compared with other medications, gabapentin/pregabalin was significantly effective especially for dysesthesia/paresthesia and evoked pain regardless of the pain level.

Comparisons on efficacy of elcatonin and limaprost alfadex in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and concurrent osteoporosis: a preliminary study using a crossover design.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter prospective study with a crossover design. PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of limaprost alfadex (LP) and elcatonin (EL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients with concurrent osteoporosis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: It has been increasingly important to improve quality of life by establishing appropriate conservative treatments for LSS patients with concurrent osteoporosis who will presumably continue to increase due to the percentage of the aging elevations, however there is no prospective study. METHODS: A total of 19 patients with LSS and concurrent osteoporosis were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups and compared using a crossover design. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and short-form (SF)-8 health survey scale were used for clinical evaluations. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement of buttock-leg pain and numbness in the EL group. A significant improvement of impaired walking function was noted for the LP group according to the JOABPEQ while the rest of the items in the JOABPEQ showed no significant differences. The SF-8 health survey revealed that somatic pains and physical summary scores in the EL group and physical functioning and physical summary scores in the LP group tended to improve but not to any statistically significant extents. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant uses of EL may be useful in patients who do not respond satisfactorily to the treatments of LP for 6-8 weeks.

Validation study of a clinical diagnosis support tool for lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: A clinical diagnosis support tool for lumbar spinal stenosis was developed by the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research. However, the use of this tool has not yet been validated. METHODS: Patients with symptoms in the lower extremities and who visited the Department of Orthopedics initially were recruited to the study. Orthopedic physicians who were not spine specialists completed the support tools. Spine specialists examined the patients, made a diagnosis, and completed the lumbar spine examination sheet made for the study. The support tool and lumbar spine examination sheet were sent to a central panel comprising four panelists who then decided on a final diagnosis. RESULTS: In total, 118 patients were evaluated, including 62 males and 56 females. Lumbar spinal stenosis was diagnosed in 58 and nonlumbar spinal stenosis in 60 patients. The mean score in the lumbar spinal stenosis group was 12.2 points (median 13 points). In the nonlumbar spinal stenosis group, the mean score was 7.5 points (median 7 points). Sensitivity was 0.948, and specificity was 0.40. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with a very low score were diagnosed with mild lumbar spinal stenosis, whereas nonlumbar spinal stenosis patients with a very high score were diagnosed as suffering from spine disease and needing special treatment by spine surgeons. Our results validate the use of the support tool for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Although the specificity observed in the present study was lower than that reported at development, we conclude that this support tool is useful for screening patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Predictors of neurologic recovery in acute central cervical cord injury with only upper extremity impairment.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of 22 patients with the syndrome of acute central cervical spinal cord injury with motor and sensory impairment involving only upper extremities (ACCSCI-U) was done from admission to the 2-year follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the course of neurologic function and to identify predictors of a good neurologic recovery in patients with ACCSCI-U. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known regarding the time-course profile of neurologic and functional recovery and the prognostic factors for neurologic recovery in patients with ACCSCI-U. METHODS: Between 1997 and 1998, 22 new cases of ACCSCI-U were identified (15 men and 7 women) with a mean age of 45.9 years (range, 13-75 years). They were all treated nonsurgically. Neurologic impairment, as evaluated by the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor and sensory scores, was assessed on patient arrival at the emergency department and followed prospectively at intervals from admission to the 2-year follow-up. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were performed acutely (1 hours to 2 days after injury), subacutely (3-21 days after injury), and chronically (3-9 months after injury). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the variables that were associated with neurologic improvement. RESULTS: No patient sustained cervical fractures. The mean sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canals (14.8 mm) was smaller than that of normal subjects in Japan. Of these 22 patients, seven (32%) had radiologic evidence of developmental cervical canal stenosis and two (9%) had evidence of ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament. Thirteen (59%) had cervical spondylosis: of these, four (31%) had cervical stenosis. Nonsurgical treatment resulted in nearly full neurologic recovery within approximately 6 weeks after the injury. None of the patients went on to need surgery. Their average ASIA score of motor, light touch sensation, and pin sensation was increased from 82.2, 104.5, and 104.3 at admission to 99.3, 111.2, and 111.0, respectively, at 2 years after injury. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best predictor associated with a better neurologic recovery of motor, light touch sensation, and pin sensation was the absence of MRI findings of abnormal signal intensity in the spinal cord, with an odds ratio of 64 (P < 0.006), 13 (P < 0.04),and 15 (P < 0.03), respectively. The results also revealed that percent deficit improvement became significant at 1 week after injury to predict neurologic recovery at 2-year follow-up points. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACCSCI-U, a favorable neurologic prognosis can be predicted following nonsurgical treatment. Most recovery occurred by 6 weeks, and patients with severe initial neurologic damage and old age had poorer recovery. Touch and pin sensation recovered at the same rate, whereas motor recovered more quickly. The absence of abnormal MRI signal intensity in the spinal cord and a good early neurologic improvement were the significant predictors of long-term improvement in neurologic function.