Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
243,096
result(s) for
"Back"
Sort by:
Bifidobacterium treatment for chronic low back pain in patients with Modic changes: study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Background
Low back pain (LBP) is a major global health issue, affecting approximately two-thirds of the population at some point in their lives. Modic changes (MCs) in the vertebral endplates, as observed on MRI, are recognized contributors to LBP and may be linked to advanced stages of intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD). Prior research has shown a decrease in the genus
Bifidobacterium
in the endplate cartilage of patients with IDD and concurrent MCs. The potential link between reduced
Bifidobacterium
levels and MC-related LBP remains unclear.
Methods
This multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial will be conducted at four hospitals in China, comparing the efficacy of orally administered
Bifidobacterium adolescentis
(BA) with that of a placebo. Participants will receive the treatment twice daily for a duration of three months. The study targets patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) and Modic type I or II. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either
Bifidobacterium adolescentis
or a placebo for three months. The primary outcome will be the change in the Simplified Chinese Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (SCRMDQ) score at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include changes in DASS-21 scores, MRI imaging, bone density measurements, and serum biomarker analysis.
Discussion
This study will provide valuable insights into the therapeutic potential of
Bifidobacterium adolescentis
in managing chronic LBP associated with Modic changes, potentially offering a novel approach to treating this common and debilitating condition.
Trial registration
The trial has been registered with China Clinical Trial Registry, under the registration number ChiCTR2400088577. Registered on 21 August. The study was prospectively registered.
Journal Article
Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care
Acute low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent, with a presumed favorable prognosis; however, once chronic, LBP becomes a disabling and expensive condition. Acute to chronic LBP transition rates vary widely owing to absence of standardized operational definitions, and it is unknown whether a standardized prognostic tool (ie, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back tool [SBT]) can estimate this transition or whether early non-guideline concordant treatment is associated with the transition to chronic LBP.
To assess the associations between the transition from acute to chronic LBP with SBT risk strata; demographic, clinical, and practice characteristics; and guideline nonconcordant processes of care.
This inception cohort study was conducted alongside a multisite, pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Adult patients with acute LBP stratified by SBT risk were enrolled in 77 primary care practices in 4 regions across the United States between May 2016 and June 2018 and followed up for 6 months, with final follow-up completed by March 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January to March 2020.
SBT risk strata and early LBP guideline nonconcordant processes of care (eg, receipt of opioids, imaging, and subspecialty referral).
Transition from acute to chronic LBP at 6 months using the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards consensus definition of chronic LBP. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and LBP process of care were obtained via electronic medical records.
Overall, 5233 patients with acute LBP (3029 [58%] women; 4353 [83%] White individuals; mean [SD] age 50.6 [16.9] years; 1788 [34%] low risk; 2152 [41%] medium risk; and 1293 [25%] high risk) were included. Overall transition rate to chronic LBP at six months was 32% (1666 patients). In a multivariable model, SBT risk stratum was positively associated with transition to chronic LBP (eg, high-risk vs low-risk groups: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.00-2.98; P < .001). Patient and clinical characteristics associated with transition to chronic LBP included obesity (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; P < .001); smoking (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89; P < .001); severe and very severe baseline disability (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.48-2.24; P < .001 and aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.60-2.68; P < .001, respectively) and diagnosed depression/anxiety (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28-2.15; P < .001). After controlling for all other variables, patients exposed to 1, 2, or 3 nonconcordant processes of care within the first 21 days were 1.39 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), 1.88 (95% CI, 1.53-2.32), and 2.16 (95% CI, 1.10-4.25) times more likely to develop chronic LBP compared with those with no exposure (P < .001).
In this cohort study, the transition rate to chronic LBP was substantial and increased correspondingly with SBT stratum and early exposure to guideline nonconcordant care.
Journal Article
PSOAS strength and flexibility : core workouts to increase mobility, reduce injuries and end back pain
\"A complete guide to preventing back and hip injuries by strengthening the muscle group connecting your upper and lower body. Connecting the lower spine to the hips and legs, a strong and flexible psoas muscle is vital for everyday movements like walking, bending and reaching, as well as athletic endeavors like jumping for a ball, holding a yoga pose and swinging a golf club. With targeted information and exercises, this book's step-by-step program guarantees you'll transforms this vulnerable muscle, including: Develop a powerful core End back pain Increase range of motion Improve posture Prevent strains and injuries Packed with 100s of step-by-step photos and clear, concise instructions, Psoas Strength and Flexibility features workouts for toning the muscle as well as rehabbing from injury. And each program is based on simple matwork exercises that require minimal or no equipment\"-- Back cover.
Book
Comparison of 10-kHz High-Frequency and Traditional Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: 24-Month Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Pivotal Trial
BACKGROUND:Pain relief with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has focused historically on paresthesias overlapping chronically painful areas. A higher level evidence supports the use of SCS in treating leg pain than supports back pain, as it is difficult to achieve adequate paresthesia coverage, and then pain relief, in the low back region. In comparison, 10-kHz high-frequency (HF10 therapy) SCS therapy does not rely on intraoperative paresthesia mapping and remains paresthesia-free during therapy.
OBJECTIVE:To compare long-term results of HF10 therapy and traditional low-frequency SCS.
METHODS:A pragmatic randomized, controlled, pivotal trial with 24-month follow-up was conducted across 11 comprehensive pain treatment centers. Subjects had Visual Analog Scale scores of ≥5.0/10.0 cm for both back and leg pain, and were assigned randomly (1:1) to receive HF10 therapy or low-frequency SCS. The primary end point was a responder rate, defined as ≥50% back pain reduction from baseline at 3 months with a secondary end point at 12 months (previously reported). In this article, 24-month secondary results are presented. Non-inferiority was first assessed, and if demonstrated the results were tested for superiority.
RESULTS:In the study, 198 subjects were randomized (101 HF10 therapy, 97 traditional SCS). One hundred seventy-one subjects (90 HF10 therapy, 81 traditional SCS) successfully completed a short-term trial and were implanted. Subjects averaged 54.9 ± 12.9 years old, 13.6 ± 11.3 years since diagnosis, 86.6% had back surgery, 88.3% were taking opioid analgesics. At 3 months, 84.5% of implanted HF10 therapy subjects were responders for back pain and 83.1% for leg pain, and 43.8% of traditional SCS subjects were responders for back pain and 55.5% for leg pain (P < .001 for both back and leg pain comparisons, non-inferiority and superiority). At 24 months, more subjects were responders to HF10 therapy than traditional SCS (back pain76.5% vs 49.3%; 27.2% difference, 95% CI, 10.1%-41.8%; P < .001 for non-inferiority and superiority; leg pain72.9% vs 49.3%; 23.6% difference, 95% CI, 5.9%-38.6%; P < .001 for non-inferiority and P = .003 for superiority). Also at 24 months, back pain decreased to a greater degree with HF10 therapy (66.9% ± 31.8%) than traditional SCS (41.1% ± 36.8%, P < .001 for non-inferiority and superiority). Leg pain also decreased to a greater degree with HF10 therapy (65.1% ± 36.0%) than traditional SCS (46.0% ± 40.4%, P < .001 for non-inferiority and P = .002 for superiority).
CONCLUSION:This study demonstrates long-term superiority of HF10 therapy compared with traditional SCS in treating both back and leg pain. The advantages of HF10 therapy are anticipated to impact the management of chronic pain patients substantially.
ABBREVIATIONS:IPG, implantable pulse generatorMCID, minimal clinically important differencePI, permanent implantODI, Oswestry Disability IndexSCS, spinal cord stimulationVAS, Visual Analog Scale
Journal Article
Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial
Back pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control).
1573 adults (aged ≥18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406.
851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9]
vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06–2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4]
vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25–1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19–0·45) and 0·19 (0·04–0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01
vs £274·40) compared with the control group.
The results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care.
Arthritis Research UK.
Journal Article
Relief is in the stretch : end back pain through yoga
\"Offers specific yoga techniques to cure or control back pain and sciatica according to its cause\"--Provided by publisher.
Book
Management of pain of post lumbar surgery syndrome: one-year results of a randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial of fluoroscopic caudal epidural injections
Post lumbar surgery syndrome represents a cluster of nomenclature and syndromes following spine surgery wherein the expectations of the patient and spine surgeon are not met, with persistent pain following lumbar surgery. Multiple causes have been speculated to cause pain after lumbar surgery. Epidural steroid injections are most commonly used in managing post surgical pain in the lumbar spine. However, there is a paucity of evidence of epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain in post surgery syndrome.
A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial.
An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.
To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain after surgical intervention with post lumbar surgery syndrome.
One-hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of 6 mg non-particulate Celestone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization.
Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief and disability reduction were described as 50% or more reduction in scores from baseline.
Combined pain relief (>/=50%) and disability reduction was recorded in 53% of the patients in the local anesthetic group, and 59% of patients in the local anesthetic and steroid group with no significant differences noted with or without steroid over a period of one-year. However, the data from the successful group showed improvement in 70% of patients in Group I and 75% of patients in Group II. The average procedures per year were 4 with an average total relief per year of 38.1 ± 14.5 weeks in Group I and 38.4 ± 13.2 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks in the successful group.
The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and one-year outcomes.
Caudal epidural injections in chronic function-limiting low back pain in post surgery syndrome without facet joint pain may be effective in a significant proportion of patients with improvement in functional status and significant pain relief.
NCT00370799.
Journal Article