Back Pain

Chou R, Loeser JD, Owens DK, Rosenquist RW, Atlas SJ, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Grabois M, Murphy DR, Resnick DK, Stanos SP, Shaffer WO, Wall EM, Anonymous00055. · Department of Medicine, Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #19363457 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies, surgeries, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain of any duration, with or without leg pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of patients with persistent and disabling low back pain remains a clinical challenge. A number of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies and surgery are available and their use is increasing, but in some cases their utility remains uncertain or controversial. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has also been proposed as a potentially effective noninvasive intervention for persistent and disabling low back pain. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was convened by the American Pain Society. Its recommendations were based on a systematic review that focused on evidence from randomized controlled trials. Recommendations were graded using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. RESULTS: Investigators reviewed 3348 abstracts. A total of 161 randomized trials were deemed relevant to the recommendations in this guideline. The panel developed a total of 8 recommendations. CONCLUSION: Recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are presented. Due to important trade-offs between potential benefits, harms, costs, and burdens of alternative therapies, shared decision-making is an important component of a number of the recommendations.

White BD, Stirling AJ, Paterson E, Asquith-Coe K, Melder A, Anonymous00026. · Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH. · BMJ. · Pubmed #19039017 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Pincus T, Santos R, Breen A, Burton AK, Underwood M, Anonymous00084. · Royal Holloway, University of London, London, UK. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18163411 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Scharman EJ, Erdman AR, Cobaugh DJ, Olson KR, Woolf AD, Caravati EM, Chyka PA, Booze LL, Manoguerra AS, Nelson LS, Christianson G, Troutman WG, Anonymous00296. · American Association of Poison Control Centers, Washington, District of Columbia 20016, USA. · Clin Toxicol (Phila). · Pubmed #18058301 No free full text.

Abstract: A review of US poison center data for 2004 showed over 8,000 ingestions of methylphenidate. A guideline that determines the conditions for emergency department referral and prehospital care could potentially optimize patient outcome, avoid unnecessary emergency department visits, reduce health care costs, and reduce life disruption for patients and caregivers. An evidence-based expert consensus process was used to create the guideline. Relevant articles were abstracted by a trained physician researcher. The first draft of the guideline was created by the lead author. The entire panel discussed and refined the guideline before distribution to secondary reviewers for comment. The panel then made changes based on the secondary review comments. The objective of this guideline is to assist poison center personnel in the appropriate out-of-hospital triage and initial out-of-hospital management of patients with suspected ingestions of methylphenidate by 1) describing the process by which a specialist in poison information should evaluate an exposure to methylphenidate, 2) identifying the key decision elements in managing cases of methylphenidate ingestion, 3) providing clear and practical recommendations that reflect the current state of knowledge, and 4) identifying needs for research. This review focuses on the ingestion of more than a single therapeutic dose of methylphenidate and the effects of an overdose and is based on an assessment of current scientific and clinical information. The expert consensus panel recognizes that specific patient care decisions may be at variance with this guideline and are the prerogative of the patient and the health professionals providing care, considering all of the circumstances involved. This guideline does not substitute for clinical judgment. Recommendations are in chronological order of likely clinical use. The grade of recommendation is in parentheses. 1) All patients with suicidal intent, intentional abuse, or in cases in which a malicious intent is suspected (e.g., child abuse or neglect) should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 2) In patients without evidence of self-harm, abuse, or malicious intent, poison center personnel should elicit additional information including the time of the ingestion, the precise dose ingested, and the presence of coingestants (Grade D). 3) Patients who are chronically taking a monoamine oxidase inhibitor and who have ingested any amount of methylphenidate require referral to an emergency department (Grade D). 4) Patients experiencing any changes in behavior other than mild stimulation or agitation should be referred to an emergency department. Examples of moderate to severe symptoms that warrant referral include moderate-to-severe agitation, hallucinations, abnormal muscle movements, headache, chest pain, loss of consciousness, or convulsions (Grade D). 5) For patients referred to an emergency department, transportation via ambulance should be considered based on several factors including the condition of the patient and the length of time it will take for the patient to arrive at the emergency department (Grade D). 6) If the patient has no symptoms, and more than 3 hours have elapsed between the time of ingestion and the call to the poison center, referral to an emergency department is not recommended (Grade D). 7) Patients with acute or acute-on-chronic ingestions of less than a toxic dose (see recommendations 8, 9, and 10) or chronic exposures to methylphenidate with no or mild symptoms can be observed at home with instructions to call the poison center back if symptoms develop or worsen. For acute-on-chronic ingestions, the caller should be instructed not to administer methylphenidate to the patient for the next 24 hours. The poison center should consider making a follow-up call at approximately 3 hours after ingestion (Grade D). 8) Patients who ingest more than 2 mg/kg or 60 mg, whichever is less, of an immediate-release formulation (or the equivalent amount of a modified-release formulation that has been chewed) should be referred to an emergency department (Grade C). 9) If a patch has been swallowed, consider the entire contents of the patch (not just the labeled dose of the patch) to have been ingested. Patients who ingest more than 2 mg/kg or 60 mg, whichever is less should be referred to an emergency department. If it is known that the patch has been chewed only briefly, and the patch remains intact, significant toxicity is unlikely and emergency department referral is not necessary (Grade D). 10) Patients who ingest more than 4 mg/kg or 120 mg, whichever is less, of an intact modified-release formulation should be referred to an emergency department (Grade D). 11) For oral exposures, do not induce emesis (Grade D). 12) Pre-hospital activated charcoal administration, if available, should only be carried out by health professionals and only if no contraindications are present. Do not delay transportation in order to administer activate charcoal (Grade D). 13) Benzodiazepines can be administered by EMS personnel if agitation, dystonia, or convulsions are present and if authorized by EMS medical direction expressed by written treatment protocol or policy or direct medical oversight (Grade C). 14) Standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) measures should be administered by EMS personnel if respiratory arrest, cardiac dysrhythmias, or cardiac arrest are present and if authorized by EMS medical direction expressed by written treatment protocol or policy or direct medical oversight (Grade C).

Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross JT, Shekelle P, Owens DK, Anonymous00367, Anonymous00368, Anonymous00369. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #17909209 links to  free full text

Abstract: RECOMMENDATION 1: Clinicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific low back pain, back pain potentially associated with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis, or back pain potentially associated with another specific spinal cause. The history should include assessment of psychosocial risk factors, which predict risk for chronic disabling back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinicians should not routinely obtain imaging or other diagnostic tests in patients with nonspecific low back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: Clinicians should perform diagnostic imaging and testing for patients with low back pain when severe or progressive neurologic deficits are present or when serious underlying conditions are suspected on the basis of history and physical examination (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: Clinicians should evaluate patients with persistent low back pain and signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or spinal stenosis with magnetic resonance imaging (preferred) or computed tomography only if they are potential candidates for surgery or epidural steroid injection (for suspected radiculopathy) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5: Clinicians should provide patients with evidence-based information on low back pain with regard to their expected course, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about effective self-care options (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: For patients with low back pain, clinicians should consider the use of medications with proven benefits in conjunction with back care information and self-care. Clinicians should assess severity of baseline pain and functional deficits, potential benefits, risks, and relative lack of long-term efficacy and safety data before initiating therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). For most patients, first-line medication options are acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RECOMMENDATION 7: For patients who do not improve with self-care options, clinicians should consider the addition of nonpharmacologic therapy with proven benefits-for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation; for chronic or subacute low back pain, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise therapy, acupuncture, massage therapy, spinal manipulation, yoga, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or progressive relaxation (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Anonymous115278. · No affiliation provided · Wien Klin Wochenschr. · Pubmed #17427024 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Mlitz H, Jost W, Anonymous00108, Anonymous00109. · Department of Dermatology, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany. · J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. · Pubmed #17338803 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S, Schultz DM, Hansen HC, Abdi S, Sehgal N, Shah RV, Singh V, Benyamin RM, Patel VB, Buenaventura RM, Colson JD, Cordner HJ, Epter RS, Jasper JF, Dunbar EE, Atluri SL, Bowman RC, Deer TR, Swicegood JR, Staats PS, Smith HS, Burton AW, Kloth DS, Giordano J, Manchikanti L, Anonymous00089. · American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Paducah, KY 42001, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #17256025 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of chronic spinal pain with interventional techniques were developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain, utilizing all types of evidence and to apply an evidence-based approach, with broad representation by specialists from academic and clinical practices. DESIGN: Study design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. METHODS: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). RESULTS: Among the diagnostic interventions, the accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks is strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it is moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence is strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence is limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies is moderate. The evidence for diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is moderate. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections is moderate for short-term and long-term improvement, whereas, it is limited for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks is moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy is moderate. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence is moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it is moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited in managing pain secondary to lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence is moderate for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain is limited.The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy is moderate in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas for annuloplasty the evidence is limited. Among the various techniques utilized for percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is moderate for short-term and limited for long-term relief for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, and percutaneous laser discectomy, whereas it is limited for nucleoplasty and for DeKompressor technology. For vertebral augmentation procedures, the evidence is moderate for both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. CONCLUSION: These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines also do not represent a "standard of care."

Levy MH, Back A, Bazargan S, Benedetti C, Billings JA, Block S, Bruera E, Carducci MA, Dy S, Eberle C, Foley KM, Harris JD, Knight SJ, Milch R, Rhiner M, Slatkin NE, Spiegel D, Sutton L, Urba S, Von Roenn JH, Weinstein SM, Anonymous00320. · Fox Chase Cancer Center. · J Natl Compr Canc Netw. · Pubmed #16948956 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Negrini S, Giovannoni S, Minozzi S, Barneschi G, Bonaiuti D, Bussotti A, D'Arienzo M, Di Lorenzo N, Mannoni A, Mattioli S, Modena V, Padua L, Serafini F, Violante FS. · ISICO (Italian Scientific Spine Institute), Milan, Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation, ONLUS, IRCCS, Milan, Italy. · Eura Medicophys. · Pubmed #16767064 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal JB, Ursin H, Zanoli G, Anonymous00003. · No affiliation provided · Eur Spine J. · Pubmed #16550448 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

van Tulder M, Becker A, Bekkering T, Breen A, del Real MT, Hutchinson A, Koes B, Laerum E, Malmivaara A, Anonymous00002. · No affiliation provided · Eur Spine J. · Pubmed #16550447 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Burton AK, Balagué F, Cardon G, Eriksen HR, Henrotin Y, Lahad A, Leclerc A, Müller G, van der Beek AJ, Anonymous00001. · No affiliation provided · Eur Spine J. · Pubmed #16550446 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Britnell SJ, Cole JV, Isherwood L, Sran MM, Britnell N, Burgi S, Candido G, Watson L, Anonymous00246, Anonymous00247. · No affiliation provided · J Obstet Gynaecol Can. · Pubmed #16100646 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To advise obstetric and gynaecology care providers of the physical, psychological, and environmental factors that affect women's posture throughout their lifespan, from adolescence to menopause. To outline the physiotherapy management of obstetrics, osteoporosis, and urinary incontinence in women and to identify recommendations for referral to a physiotherapist. OUTCOMES: Knowledge of abnormal postures, contributing factors and recommendations for physiotherapy management. EVIDENCE: MEDLINE, PEDro, and Cochrane Library Search from 1992 to 2003 for English-language articles and references from current textbooks related to posture and women's health conditions that are managed by physiotherapists. VALUES: The evidence collected was reviewed by the authors and quantified using the evaluation of evidence guidelines developed by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Exam. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Pelvic floor muscle training with a physiotherapist is recommended to prevent urinary incontinence during pregnancy and after delivery (I-A). 2. Core stability training with a physiotherapist is recommended to prevent and treat back and pelvic pain during and following pregnancy (I-B). 3. Physiotherapist-prescribed exercises are recommended for women to elicit positive changes in bone mass and to reduce fall and fracture risk (I-A). 4. Pelvic floor muscle training with a physiotherapist is recommended for women with stress urinary incontinence (I-A). The Canadian Physiotherapy Association and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada have developed this joint policy statement regarding posture in women's health that highlights the physical, psychological, and environmental factors that affect women's posture throughout their lifespan, from adolescence to menopause. This statement outlines the role of physiotherapy in the assessment and treatment of women's posture; outlines the physiotherapy management of obstetrics, osteoporosis, and urinary incontinence; and identifies recommendations for referral to a physiotherapist. The quality of evidence and classification of recommendations have been adapted from the Report of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Exam (Table 1).1.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, Anonymous00068. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. · J Neurosurg Spine. · Pubmed #16028742 No free full text.

Abstract: Although conflicting reports have been presented in the literature regarding the utility of lumbar braces for the prevention of low-back pain, most Class III medical evidence suggests that these supports used prophylactically do not reduce the incidence of low-back pain or decrease the amount of time lost from work in the general working population. Among workers with a history of a back injury, their use appears to decrease the number of work days lost due to back pain. Lumbar braces appear to be an effective treatment for acute low-back pain in some populations. They do not appear to be effective in the chronic low-back pain population. If a brace is used, rigid braces offer some benefit over soft braces. There are no data to suggest that relief of low-back pain with preoperative external bracing predicts a favorable outcome following lumbar spinal fusion. No information is available on the benefit of bracing for improving fusion rates or clinical outcomes following instrumented lumbar fusion for degenerative disease.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, Anonymous00067. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. · J Neurosurg Spine. · Pubmed #16028741 No free full text.

Abstract: In summary, there is no meaningful evidence in the medical literature that the use of epidural injections is of any long-term value in the treatment of patients with chronic low-back pain. The literature does indicate that the use of lumbar epidural injections can provide short-term relief in selected patients with chronic low-back pain. There is evidence that suggests that facet joint injections can be used to predict outcome after RF ablation of a facet joint. The predictive ability of facet joint injections does not appear to apply to lumbar fusion surgery. No evidence exists to support the effectiveness of facet injections in the treatment of patients with chronic low-back pain. There is conflicting evidence suggesting that the use of local TPIs can be effective for the short-term relief of low-back pain. There are no data to suggest that TPIs with either steroids or anesthetics alone provide lasting benefit for patients suffering from chronic low-back pain.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, Anonymous00066. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. · J Neurosurg Spine. · Pubmed #16028740 No free full text.

Abstract: This review focused on an examination of the literature on the surgical treatment of low-back pain in patients with DDD or low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with PLF, with or without the use of pedicle screw fixation. All Class I and the majority of Class II and Class III medical evidence on this topic indicates that the addition of pedicle screw fixation to PLF increases fusion success rates when assessed based on plain x-ray films with dynamic imaging. Although there does appear to be a positive relationship between radiographic fusion and clinical outcome, no convincing correlation has been demonstrated. Although several reports suggest that clinical outcomes are improved with the addition of pedicle screw fixation, there are conflicting findings from similarly classified evidence sources (primarily Class II and III). Furthermore, the largest contemporary randomized controlled study on this topic failed to demonstrate a significant beneficial effect for the use of pedicle screw fixation in patients treated with PLF for chronic low-back pain. This absence of proof should not, however, be interpreted as a proof of absence. For example, in this same study, patient satisfaction scores improved from approximately 60% to approximately 70% with the addition of pedicle screw fixation. This difference in outcome may be clinically relevant. Similarly, the improvement in ODI scores was 40% greater in the group of patients treated with pedicle screw fixation compared with those treated with PLF alone. If an analysis to determine the sample size necessary to ensure a power of 0.8 (or an 80% chance of detecting a significant effect) in a study in which the good outcome rate is 60% in the control group and 70% in the treatment group is performed, approximately 355 patients would be needed in each treatment group (http://department.obg.cuhk.edu.hk). Alternatively, if a similar analysis is performed using the differential scores obtained in the ODI measurements reported in the paper by Fritzell, et al., approximately 225 patients would be needed per treatment group (http://calculators.stat.ucla.edu/powercalc). Although Fritzell, et al., did not detect a significant benefit associated with the use of pedicle screw fixation as an adjunct to PLF, their sample size severely limited the power of their study to detect such a benefit. All studies reviewed suffer from similar lack of power. Therefore, no definitive statement regarding the efficacy of pedicle screw fixation as a means to improve functional outcomes in patients undergoing PLF for chronic low-back pain can be made. There appears to be consistent evidence suggesting that pedicle screw fixation increases the costs and complication rate of PLF. It is recommended, therefore, that the use of pedicle screw fixation as a supplement to PLF be reserved for those patients in whom there is an increased risk of nonunion when treated with PLF. High-risk patients include, but are not limited to patients who smoke, who are undergoing revision surgery, or who suffer systemic diseases known to be associated with poor bone healing.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, Anonymous00065. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. · J Neurosurg Spine. · Pubmed #16028739 No free full text.

Abstract: The majority of reviewed medical evidence suggests that interbody techniques are associated with higher fusion rates compared with PLF when applied to patients with low-back pain due to DDD limited to one or two levels. The evidence is generally of poor quality and retrospective in nature. Conflicting evidence exists supporting the role of interbody graft placement for improvement of functional outcomes; however, there is no Class I or II evidence to suggest that the use of an interbody graft is associated with worse outcomes, and Class II evidence exists to suggest that outcomes are improved. Complication rates of interbody graft placement, particularly of circumferential procedures, are higher in most series. Many complications, however, are associated with pedicle screw fixation and not with interbody graft placement per se. In the context of a single-level stand-alone ALIF or ALIF with posterior instrumentation, there does not appear to be a substantial benefit to the addition of a PLF. The addition of a PLF to a construct that already includes an interbody graft is, however, associated with increased costs and complications. Therefore, although the addition of supplemental fixation (a 270 degrees fusion) may be necessary for biomechanical reasons, it may not be appropriate to subject the patient to the morbidity of a full posterior exposure for placement of graft material. Significant differences in clinical outcomes between the various interbody techniques have not been convincingly demonstrated. No general recommendation can therefore be made regarding the technique that should be used to achieve interbody fusion.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, Anonymous00062. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. · J Neurosurg Spine. · Pubmed #16028736 No free full text.

Abstract: There is no convincing medical evidence to support the routine use of lumbar fusion at the time of a primary lumbar disc excision. There is conflicting Class III medical evidence regarding the potential benefit of the addition of fusion in this circumstance. Therefore, the definite increase in cost and complications associated with the use of fusion are not justified. Patients with preoperative lumbar instability may benefit from fusion at the time of lumbar discectomy; however, the incidence of such instability appears to be very low (< 5%) in the general lumbar disc herniation population. Patients who suffer from chronic low-back pain, or are heavy laborers or athletes with axial low-back pain, in addition to radicular symptoms may also be candidates for fusion at the time of lumbar disc excision. Patients with a recurrent disc herniation have been treated successfully with both reoperative discectomy and reoperative discectomy combined with fusion. In patients with a recurrent lumbar disc herniation with associated spinal deformity, instability, or associated chronic low-back pain, consideration of fusion in addition to reoperative discectomy is recommended.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, Anonymous00061. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. · J Neurosurg Spine. · Pubmed #16028735 No free full text.

Abstract: Class I medical evidence exists in support of the use of lumbar fusion as a treatment standard for carefully selected patients with low-back pain intractable to the best medical management. There is Class III medical evidence that suggests that a course of intensive cognitive and physical therapy may be an efficacious treatment option for the treatment of patients with chronic disabling low-back pain.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, Anonymous00060. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. · J Neurosurg Spine. · Pubmed #16028734 No free full text.

Abstract: Discography is an exquisitely sensitive but not specific diagnostic test for the diagnosis of discogenic low-back pain. The restriction of the definition of a positive discographic study to one that elicits concordant pain from a morphologically abnormal disc improves the definition's accuracy. Fusion surgery based on discography alone, however, is not reliably associated with clinical success. Therefore, discography is not recommended as a standalone test for treatment decisions in patients with low-back pain. Magnetic resonance imaging is a sensitive and noninvasive test for the presence of degenerative disc disease. Discography should not be attempted in patients with normal lumbar MR images. Discography appears to have a role in the evaluation of patients with low-back pain, but it is best limited to the evaluation of abnormal interspaces identified on MR imaging, the investigation of adjacent-level disc disease, and as a means to rule out cases of nonorganic pain from surgical consideration.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, Anonymous00056. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. · J Neurosurg Spine. · Pubmed #16028730 No free full text.

Abstract: Functional disability secondary to acute low-back pain, chronic low-back pain, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar disc disease may be reliably and validly assessed using functional outcome surveys that are valid, reliable, and responsive. Outcome instruments supported by Class I and Class II medical evidence for the evaluation of low-back pain include the Spinal Stenosis Survey of Stucki, Waddell-Main, RMDQ, DPQ, QPDS, SIP, Million Scale, LBPR Scale, ODI, and CBSQ. Many of these outcome measures have been applied to patients who have been treated with lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar disease and have proven to be valid and responsive; however, the reliability of these instruments has never been specifically assessed in the lumbar fusion patient population. Patient satisfaction surveys have been used to measure outcome following lumbar fusion. Their usefulness resides in their insight into patient attitudes toward the treatment experience but is limited because of their inability to measure responsiveness and the lack of information on their reliability.

Anonymous00210. · No affiliation provided · Am Fam Physician. · Pubmed #15999872 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

González Ramírez S, Chaparro Ruiz ES, de la Rosa Alvarado Mdel R, Díaz Vega M, Guzmán González JM, Jiménez Alcántara JA, López Roldán VM, Rosas Medina J. · Hospital de Urgencias Traumatológicas, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. · Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. · Pubmed #15998482 No free full text.

Abstract: Whiplash is a sprain of the ligament with strain of the paraspinal muscles due to acceleration or back acceleration of energy transmitted to the neck. The symptoms are neck pain, neck stiffness, muscular spasm and a multitude of discomforts that affect job-related and activities of daily living. In 2000, the Mexican Social Security System treated more than 15,000 cases of whiplash due to job-related activities. With this information, we organized an expert team in order to develop guidelines using methodology of evidence-based medicine and with a focus on early treatment prescribed by the general practitioner in order for the patient to obtain quick relief and to return the patient to his job and to his daily living activities as soon as possible.

Becker A, Chenot JF, Niebling W, Kochen MM, Anonymous00255. · Abteilung Allgemeinmedizin, Universität Göttingen. · Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. · Pubmed #15614654 No free full text.

Abstract: Chronic back pain is one of our society's most important health problems, causing long periods of sick leave and early retirements. Recently the German Society of General Practice and Family Medicine (DEGAM) published an evidence-based guideline for low back pain. It has been developed according to the 10-step concept of guideline development of the DEGAM, aiming for early detection of complicated clinical conditions, avoidance of unnecessary diagnostic tests and prevention of chronicity. Complicated, uncomplicated and radicular pain are defined by patient history and a short clinical examination. Imaging and further diagnostic tests are reserved for patients at risk. Basic therapy consists of structured advice. The aim of the guideline is to get patients back to their usual activity supported by effective pain relief. Psychosocial factors which are important for the prognosis should be evaluated already during the first consultation. Manual therapy might help in acute pain. Patients with persistent pain symptoms and long periods of sick leave should be transferred to multiprofessional management including pain treatment, behavioural therapy and physiotherapy. A randomised controlled trial has been set up to study the efficacy of guideline implementation.