RESUMO
Objective The present paper aims to evaluate the use of a 5% lidocaine patch to treat neuropathic pain after orthopedic procedures in comparison with therapeutic massage over surgical incisions. Methods This is a prospective, randomized clinical trial with 37 patients who underwent orthopedic surgery from January 2015 to February 2017. The study included subjects aged 13 to 70 years old who underwent foot and ankle orthopedic surgery and presented neuropathic pain or hypersensitivity at the surgical incision site for at least 90 days after the procedure. All patients were assessed for pain (using the visual analog scale [VAS]) and quality of life (with the SF-36 questionnaire) at the beginning of the treatment and after 30, 60, and 90 days. Results Although the treatment improved pain in both groups, subjects using the lidocaine patch presented greater pain reduction over time. There were no statistically significant differences in the SF-36 questionnaire, with no significant evidence regarding functional capacity, physical aspects, vitality, emotional aspects, social aspects, general health condition, and mental health. The great advantage of the patch was the degree of personal satisfaction of the patients, with statistical relevance, probably due to the easy application and psychological effect of a drug therapy. Conclusion Lidocaine patches and massages are effective treatment methods for reducing scar tissue pain, with similar outcomes. The patches improved the degree of patient satisfaction. Level of Evidence 1. Prospective randomized clinical trial.
RESUMO
The use of orthobiologics as a novel therapy for the treatment of numerous musculoskeletal disorders has increased considerably over the past decade. Currently, there are multiple alternatives available as suitable treatments; however, the use of autologous blood-derived products such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate (BMA) and BMA concentrate (BMAC), specifically, is expanding. Although many investigations attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of these therapies, even with positive results, the literature lacks standardized protocols and overall accuracy in study designs, which leads to variance and difficulty in reproducibility of protocols. The efficacy of PRP for the treatment of cartilage, bone and muscle tissues is well known. Although BMAC has generated optimistic results for the same purposes, its applicability in clinical trials is still relatively recent when compared to PRP. Both products demonstrate the potential to set forth reparative processes, each in their own distinct mechanism. The combination of these biological products has been previously proposed, yet little is known about their synergism. Evidence indicates that growth factor, cytokine, and chemokine profiles seen in both PRP and BMAC vary but are likely to work synergistically to enhance musculoskeletal healing. BMAC products seem to work well without PRP; however, the addition of PRP to BMAC has been shown to act as a rich and natural source of culture medium for stem cells located either peripherally or in the bone marrow itself. Nevertheless, additional variables associated with the use of BMAC and PRP in orthopedics must be further evaluated in order to consolidate the efficacy of this therapeutic strategy.
