Articles: low-back-pain.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Sex differences in presentation, course, and management of low back pain in primary care.
Epidemiologic surveys frequently show that women more often and are more affected by low back pain (LBP). The aim of this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled study was to explore whether presentation and course of LBP of women is different from men, and if sex affects the use of healthcare services for LBP. ⋯ Our findings confirm that women are more severely affected by LBP and have a worse prognosis. Utilization of healthcare services cannot be fully explained by female sex, but rather by a higher impairment by back pain and pain in other parts of the body characteristic of the female population.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Pre-emptive infiltration of levobupivacaine is superior to at-closure administration in lumbar laminectomy patients.
This is a prospective, randomized, controlled trial that compared the efficacy of different protocols of local tissue infiltration with levobupivacaine or levobupivacaine-methylprednisolone at the surgical site for pain relief after lumbar discectomy. The objective of the study was to determine the efficacy of preemptive wound infiltration with levobupivacaine and levobupivacaine-methylprednisolone at the surgical site for pain relief. Patients usually suffer significant pain after lumbar discectomy. ⋯ The treated groups had lower parenteral opioid requirements after surgery, lower incidences of nausea and shorter hospital stays. Further, the data indicate that, compared with infiltration of these drugs at wound closure, preemptive injection of levobupivacaine or levobupivacaine-methylprednisolone into the muscle near the operative site provides more effective analgesia after lumbar discectomy. Our data suggest that preemptive infiltration of the wound site with levobupivacaine alone or combined with methylprednisolone provides effective pain control with reduced opiate dose after unilateral lumbar discectomy.
-
Arch Phys Med Rehabil · Sep 2008
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter StudyIsolated lumbar extensor strengthening versus regular physical therapy in an army working population with nonacute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
To evaluate the effectiveness of specific lumbar extensor training compared with regular physical therapy (PT) in workers with nonspecific nonacute low back pain (LBP). ⋯ Consistent with prior evidence, specific back strengthening does not seem to offer incremental benefits in LBP management compared with regular PT care that mainly consists of general exercise therapy. (ISRCTN identifier ISRCTN19334317.)
-
Southern medical journal · Sep 2008
Randomized Controlled TrialPain relief with intraarticular or medial branch nerve blocks in patients with positive lumbar facet joint SPECT imaging: a 12-week outcome study.
Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is useful in identifying patients who may respond to lumbar facet injections. There are two methods for performing lumbar facet joint injections: intraarticular and medial branch nerve blocks. A consensus has yet to be reached among physicians as to which method is the most effective. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of intraarticular and medial branch nerve blocks in SPECT-positive lumbar facet joint patients with nonradicular lower back pain. ⋯ Intraarticular lumbar facet joint injections are more effective than medial branch nerve blocks in SPECT-positive patients.
-
Measurement of exercise capacity is essential in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the conventional Astrand bicycle test is not feasible in patients with a very poor aerobic capacity. Therefore the Astrand bicycles test for non-specific CLBP patients based on lean body mass (LBM) was developed as an alternative. The aim of this study was to evaluate reliability and validity of the LBM-based Astrand test. ⋯ The present study shows that the LBM-based Astrand test is a reliable, valid, and feasible method for patients with non-specific CLBP. However, a substantial amount of variation should be taken into account in patients when interpreting the test results clinically.