Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related low back pain. Treatment of cancer-related chest wall pain using spinal cord stimulation. Spinal cord stimulation versus reoperation for failed back surgery syndrome: a prospective, randomized study design. Back pain and sciatica: controlled trials of manipulation, traction, sclerosant and epidural injections. Chronic spinal pain syndromes: a clinical pilot trial comparing acupuncture, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and spinal manipulation. Spinal cord stimulation in management of chronic pain. A 9-year experience. A family-based randomized controlled trial of pain intervention for adolescents with sickle cell disease. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sclerosing injections in patients with chronic low back pain. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management.
At least one third of patients with cancer have pain at the time of their diagnosis. In an attempt to provide increased pain relief for patients with intractable cancer pain, unconventional agents and interventional procedures including spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have received considerable attention.
                Patients with cancer-related low back pain underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of 2 temporary 8-electrode leads placed at the level of T8-T9-T10.
                After experiencing excellent pain relief during the 2-day trial, patients were subsequently implanted with permanent leads and generator with sustained pain relief at 12 months postoperation.
                Spinal cord stimulation provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with cancer-related pain who have failed conservative treatment. it has been estimated that 15% to 40% of chronic cancer pain has a neuropathic component, and this type of pain often responds poorly to opioids. In an attempt to provide increased pain relief for patients with intractable cancer pain, unconventional agents and interventional management approaches have received considerable attention. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used with increased frequency for the treatment of intractable cancer pain.
                the patients with a history of cancer-related chest wall pain underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of 2 temporary 8-electrode leads (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) placed at the level of T3-T4-T5.
                after experiencing excellent pain relief over the next 2 days, the patients were implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable generator 2 to 2 ½ weeks later and reported sustained pain relief at 12-month follow-up visit. Conclusion: SCS provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with cancer-related chest wall pain who have failed conservative treatment. SCS may provide pain relief with advantages over conservative treatments and more invasive techniques. Retrospectively reported results of spinal cord stimulation compare favorably with those of neurosurgical treatment alternatives for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome, including reoperation and ablative procedures. There has been no direct prospective comparison, however, between SCS and other techniques for pain management. Therefore, we have designed a prospective, randomized comparison of spinal cord stimulation and reoperation in patients with persistent radicular pain, with and without low back pain, after lumbosacral spine surgery. Patients selected for reoperation by standard criteria are randomly assigned to initial treatment by one or the other technique. The primary outcome measure is the frequency of crossover to the alternative procedure, if the results of the first have been unsatisfactory after 6 months. Results for the first 27 patients reaching the 6-month crossover point show a statistically significant (p = 0.018) advantage for spinal cord stimulation over reoperation. Many other potentially important outcome measures will now be followed long-term as a larger overall study population accumulates. Four treatment regimens for patients with specified combinations of low back pain and sciatica were evaluated. The largest group studied had low back pain with limited straight-leg raising (SLR) and in them the beneficial effect of manipulation in hastening pain relief was highly significant. In similar patients without limitation of SLR, the effect was of borderline significance. In all the other groups, treated patients also recovered more quickly than their controls. Traction, for patients with low back pain and sciatica, and epidural injections when a root palsy was present also produced some significant pain relief. The effect of sclerosants for back pain was less clear. To compare needle acupuncture, medication (tenoxicam with ranitidine), and spinal manipulation for managing chronic (>13 weeks duration) spinal pain syndromes.
                Prospective, randomized, independently assessed preintervention and postintervention clinical pilot trial.
                Specialized spinal pain syndrome out-patient unit at Townsville General Hospital, Queensland, Australia.
                Seventy-seven patients (without contraindication to manipulation or medication) were recruited.
                One of three separate, clearly defined intervention protocols: needle acupuncture, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, or chiropractic spinal manipulation.
                Main outcome measures were changes (4 weeks vs. initial visit) in the scores of the (1) Oswestry Back Pain Disability Index, (2) Neck Disability Index, and (3) three visual analogue scales of local pain intensity.
                Randomization was successful. After a median intervention period of 30 days, spinal manipulation was the only intervention that achieved statistically significant improvements (all expressed as percentages of the original scores) with (1) a reduction of 30.7% on the Oswestry scale, (2) an improvement of 25% on the neck disability index, and (3) reductions on the visual analogue scale of 50% for low back pain, 46% for upper back pain, and 33% for neck pain (all P<.001). Neither of the other interventions showed any significant improvement on any of the outcome measures.
                The consistency of the results provides, in spite of several discussed shortcomings of this pilot study, evidence that in patients with chronic spinal pain syndromes spinal manipulation, if not contraindicated, results in greater improvement than acupuncture and medicine. Between 1978 and 1986, 109 patients with chronic pain underwent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at the authors' institute as part of their pain treatment program. The results of SCS in these patients at the end of the test period and at the latest follow-up examination are analyzed in relation to the etiology of their pain. In 40 patients pain was associated with an obstructive peripheral vasculopathy, in 10 with a previous herpes zoster infection, in 15 with an incomplete traumatic spinal cord lesion, in nine with root and/or nerve damage, in 11 with cancer, and in 19 with previous back surgery. The etiology of the pain in five patients was uncertain. This experience supports the conclusion that the best indications for SCS are vasculopathic pain and post-herpetic neuralgia. No clinical usefulness was found for SCS in cancer pain or in central deafferentation types of pain. The study had 2 aims---to determine the efficacy of a family-based cognitive-behavioral pain management intervention for adolescents with sickle cell disease (SCD) in (1) reducing pain and improving health-related variables and (2) improving psychosocial outcomes. Each adolescent and a family support person were randomly assigned to receive a brief pain intervention (PAIN) (n=27) or a disease education attention control intervention (DISEASE ED) (n=26) delivered at home. Assessment of primary pain and health-related variables (health service use, pain coping, pain-related hindrance of goals) and secondary psychosocial outcomes (disease knowledge, disease self-efficacy, and family communication) occurred at baseline (before randomization), postintervention, and 1-year follow-up. Change on outcomes did not differ significantly by group at either time point. When groups were combined in exploratory analyses, there was evidence of small to medium effects of intervention on health-related and psychosocial variables. Efforts to address barriers to participation and improve feasibility of psychosocial interventions for pediatric SCD are critical to advancing development of effective treatments for pain. Sample size was insufficient to adequately test efficacy, and analyses did not support this focused cognitive-behavioral pain management intervention in this sample of adolescents with SCD. Exploratory analyses suggest that comprehensive interventions, that address a broad range of skills related to disease management and adolescent health concerns, may be more effective in supporting teens during healthcare transition. To determine the clinical efficacy of sclerosing injections in patients with chronic low back pain.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of three, once weekly injections of dextrose-glycerine-phenol with lignocaine vs saline plus lignocaine in patients with mechanical back pain of more than 6 months' duration. All patient assessments were performed blind by an experienced physiotherapist. The injections to the ligaments of the L4-5 and L5-S1 lumbar motion segments were given by an orthopaedic physician experienced in the technique, blinded to the nature of the injection solution according to a standard protocol. Demographic and clinical data, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the modified Somatic Pain Questionnaire, the Zung Depression Inventory, Oswestry Disability Scale and the modified Schober method of measuring spinal flexion were undertaken at 0, 1, 3 and 6 months.
                Seventy-four patients [mean (S.D.) age 45(11) yr, female:male ratio 1:1, median pain duration >10 yr] were recruited and there were no drop-outs over the study period. There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics between the placebo and treatment groups at baseline or for any measure at follow-up.
                Three, weekly sclerosant injections alone may not be effective treatment in many patients with undifferentiated chronic back pain. Patient selection and combination with other treatment modalities may be factors in determining treatment success. Population-based randomized clinical trial.
                To develop and test a model of management of subacute back pain, to prevent prolonged disability.
                The present management of back pain seems inadequate, and development of innovative models has been urged.
                A model for the treatment of subacute work-related back pain has been developed and evaluated in a population-based randomized clinical trial. Workers (n = 130) from eligible workplaces in the Sherbrooke area (N = 31), who had been absent from work for more than 4 weeks for back pain, were randomized, based on their workplace, in one of four treatment groups: usual care, clinical intervention, occupational intervention, and full intervention (a combination of the last two). The duration of absence from regular work and from any work was evaluated using survival analysis. Functional status and pain were compared at study entry and after 1 year of follow-up.
                The full intervention group returned to regular work 2.41 times faster than the usual care intervention group (95% confidence interval 1.19-4.89; P < 0.01). The specific effect of the occupational intervention accounted for the most important part of this result, with a rate ratio of return to regular work of 1.91 (95% confidence interval = 1.18-3.10; P < 0.01). Pain and disability scales demonstrated either a statistically significant reduction or a trend toward reduction in the three intervention groups, compared with the trend in the usual care intervention group.
                Close association of occupational intervention with clinical care is of primary importance in impeding progression toward chronicity of low back pain.
Although there is limited evidence in favour of SCS for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I, more trials are needed to confirm whether SCS is an effective treatment for certain types of chronic pain. In addition, there needs to be a debate about trial designs that will provide the best evidence for assessing this type of intervention.