RESUMO
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a chronic pain syndrome in the lower back region, lasting for at least 3 months. CLBP represents the second leading cause of disability worldwide being a major welfare and economic problem. The prevalence of CLBP in adults has increased more than 100% in the last decade and continues to increase dramatically in the aging population, affecting both men and women in all ethnic groups, with a significant impact on functional capacity and occupational activities. It can also be influenced by psychological factors, such as stress, depression and/or anxiety. Given this complexity, the diagnostic evaluation of patients with CLBP can be very challenging and requires complex clinical decision-making. Answering the question "what is the pain generator" among the several structures potentially involved in CLBP is a key factor in the management of these patients, since a mis-diagnosis can generate therapeutical mistakes. Traditionally, the notion that the etiology of 80% to 90% of LBP cases is unknown has been mistaken perpetuated across decades. In most cases, low back pain can be attributed to specific pain generator, with its own characteristics and with different therapeutical opportunity. Here we discuss about radicular pain, facet Joint pain, sacro-iliac pain, pain related to lumbar stenosis, discogenic pain. Our article aims to offer to the clinicians a simple guidance to identify pain generators in a safer and faster way, relying a correct diagnosis and further therapeutical approach.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Airtraq use by inexperienced personnel has been evaluated in simulator studies, but little is known about the learning process in real patients. This prospective study was designed to compare learning curves for laryngoscopy with the Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients under general anesthesia. METHODS: Ten medical students with no prior experience in airway management were recruited on a voluntary basis and underwent training in Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopy. Patients with no difficult intubation criteria were enrolled after consent. Each student performed laryngoscopy with either device on ten consecutive patients. Success was defined as Cormack-Lehane grading ≤2. We also recorded subjective difficulty scores on an 11-point numerical rating scale. Learning curves were drawn using cumulative success rates and 95% confidence intervals calculated with bootstrap procedures. RESULTS: The mean (95% CI) success rates for the procedures were 86.0% (76.7-93.3%) for the Airtraq and 64.0% (52.0-75.0%) for the Macintosh laryngoscope. Differences in success rate were significant from the fourth attempt and were 22.0% (8.2-36.5%) after the tenth. Seven students achieved success rates ≥90% using the Airtraq, versus one using the Macintosh (P = 0.022). Median (25th-75th percentile) difficulty scores were 2 (1-4) and 4 (2-6), respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Students achieved higher success rates using the Airtraq laryngoscope during early training on live patients. The Airtraq may be a useful choice for teaching advanced airway management, especially to professionals who will not perform laryngoscopy on a regular basis.
