PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation
-
To critically review the best available studies evaluating the efficacy of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) in the treatment of radicular pain. ⋯ There is fair evidence supporting TFESIs as superior to placebo for treating radicular symptoms. There is good evidence that TFESIs should be used as a surgery-sparing intervention, and that TFESIs are superior to interlaminar ESIs (ILESIs) and caudal ESIs for radicular pain. In patients with subacute or chronic radicular symptoms, there is good evidence that a single TFESI has similar efficacy as a single transforaminal injection of bupivacaine or saline. Future studies should address the ideal number of injections. While more placebo-controlled trials are needed to conclusively define the role of TFESIs, current studies support their use in the treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain.
-
The purpose of this review is 2-fold. The first is to provide a review for physiatrists already providing care for women with musculoskeletal pelvic floor pain and a resource for physiatrists who are interested in expanding their practice to include this patient population. The second is to describe how musculoskeletal dysfunctions involving the pelvic floor can be approached by the physiatrist using the same principles used to evaluate and treat others dysfunctions in the musculoskeletal system. ⋯ Improved recognition of pelvic floor dysfunction by healthcare providers will reduce impairment and disability for women with pelvic floor pain. A physiatrist is in the unique position to treat the musculoskeletal causes of this condition because it requires an expert grasp of anatomy, function, and the linked relationship between the spine and pelvis. Further research regarding musculoskeletal causes and treatment of pelvic floor pain will help validate these concepts and improve awareness and care for women limited by this condition.
-
Musculoskeletal ultrasound involves the use of high-frequency sound waves to image soft tissues and bony structures in the body for the purposes of diagnosing pathology or guiding real-time interventional procedures. Recently, an increasing number of physicians have integrated musculoskeletal ultrasound into their practices to facilitate patient care. Technological advancements, improved portability, and reduced costs continue to drive the proliferation of ultrasound in clinical medicine. ⋯ The primary purpose of this article is to review diagnostic ultrasound technology and its potential clinical applications in the evaluation and treatment of patients with neurological and musculoskeletal disorders. After reviewing this article, physicians should be able to (1) list the advantages and disadvantages of ultrasound compared to other available imaging modalities; (2) describe how ultrasound machines produce images using sound waves; (3) discuss the steps necessary to acquire and optimize an ultrasound image; (4) understand the difference ultrasound appearances of tendons, nerves, muscles, ligaments, blood vessels, and bones; and (5) identify multiple applications for diagnostic and interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound. Part 2 of this 2-part article will focus on the clinical applications of musculoskeletal ultrasound in clinical practice, including the ultrasonographic appearance of normal and abnormal tissues as well as specific diagnostic and interventional applications in major body regions.
-
Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy. ⋯ 1. Autonomic testing may be considered in the evaluation of patients with polyneuropathy to document autonomic nervous system dysfunction (Level B). Such testing should be considered especially for the evaluation of suspected autonomic neuropathy (Level B) and distal small fiber sensory polyneuropathy (SFSN) (Level C). A battery of validated tests is recommended to achieve the highest diagnostic accuracy (Level B). 2. Nerve biopsy is generally accepted as useful in the evaluation of certain neuropathies as in patients with suspected amyloid neuropathy, mononeuropathy multiplex due to vasculitis, or with atypical forms of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). However, the literature is insufficient to provide a recommendation regarding when a nerve biopsy may be useful in the evaluation of DSP (Level U). 3. Skin biopsy is a validated technique for determining intraepidermal nerve fiber (IENF) density and may be considered for the diagnosis of DSP, particularly SFSN (Level C). There is a need for additional prospective studies to define more exact guidelines for the evaluation of polyneuropathy.
-
Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of laboratory and genetic tests for the assessment of DSP. ⋯ 1. Screening laboratory tests may be considered for all patients with polyneuropathy (Level C). Those tests that provide the highest yield of abnormality are blood glucose, serum B12 with metabolites (methylmalonic acid with or without homocysteine) and serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis (Level C). If there is no definite evidence of diabetes mellitus by routine testing of blood glucose, testing for impaired glucose tolerance may be considered in distal symmetric sensory polyneuropathy (Level C). 2. Genetic testing is established as useful for the accurate diagnosis and classification of hereditary neuropathies (Level A). Genetic testing may be considered in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level C). Initial genetic testing should be guided by the clinical phenotype, inheritance pattern, and electrodiagnostic (EDX) features and should focus on the most common abnormalities which are CMT1A duplication/HNPP deletion, Cx32 (GJB1), and MFN2 mutation screening. There is insufficient evidence to determine the usefulness of routine genetic testing in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who do not exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level U).