Upper back, neck, and shoulder pain during labor epidural analgesia: a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Severe upper back/interscapular, neck and shoulder pain during labor epidural analgesia (PLEA) is not uncommon. The objective of this quality initiative was to evaluate the incidence, demographic associations and management of PLEA. METHODS: An eight-month, single-center quality improvement initiative was performed for the detection and management of PLEA. After survey-based consensus among obstetric anaesthetist attendings and fellows, a three-step PLEA treatment protocol with interventions and numeric rating scale (NRS, 0 - 10 scale) pain assessments was introduced. Demographic data and outcomes were compared among parturients with and without PLEA. RESULTS: Among 2888 women who received labor epidural analgesia from October 2022 through May 2023, 36 (1.2% [95% CI 0.9% to 1.7%]) reported PLEA. Women with PLEA were younger, more likely to be nulliparous, and had a higher body mass index (BMI) than women without PLEA (p < 0.05 for all). A total of 72.2% (26/36) of women with PLEA received at least one protocol treatment. Twenty-three women received first-line therapy, with pain relief in 91.3% (21/23). The median NRS score decreased from 9 [IQR 8-10] to 3 [1-4]. Women with PLEA had a higher incidence of cesarean delivery (CD) and a longer interval between epidural placement and delivery; 52.8 vs. 17.5% (p < 0.001) and 16.5 vs. 6.9 hours (p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PLEA was higher than previously reported. Patients with PLEA were younger, more commonly nulliparous, had higher BMI, longer epidural infusion times and higher CD rates. A three-step treatment protocol was successful in managing PLEA.

The impact of chiropractic care on prescription opioid use for non-cancer spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent studies, receipt of chiropractic care has been associated with lower odds of receiving prescription opioids and, among those already prescribed, reduced doses of opioids among patients with non-cancer spine pain. These findings suggest that access to chiropractic services may reduce reliance on opioids for musculoskeletal pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of chiropractic care on initiation, or continued use, of prescription opioids among patients with non-cancer spine pain. METHODS: We will search for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from database inception to June 2024. Article screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted independently by pairs of reviewers. We will conduct separate analyses for RCTs and observational studies and pool binary outcomes (e.g. prescribed opioid receipt, long-term opioid use, and higher versus lower opioid dose) as odds ratios (ORs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When studies provide hazard ratios (HRs) or relative risks (RRs) for time-to-event data (e.g. time-to-first opioid prescription) or incidence rates (number of opioid prescriptions over time), we will first convert them to an OR before pooling. Continuous outcomes such as pain intensity, sleep quality, or morphine equivalent dose will be pooled as weighted mean differences with associated 95% CIs. We will conduct meta-analyses using random-effects models and explore sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. We will evaluate the certainty of evidence of all outcomes using the GRADE approach and the credibility of all subgroup effects with ICEMAN criteria. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA statement and MOOSE guidelines. DISCUSSION: Our review will establish the current evidence informing the impact of chiropractic care on new or continued prescription opioid use for non-cancer spine pain. We will disseminate our results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. The findings of our review will be of interest to patients, health care providers, and policy-makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023432277.

Pain-free today, weak tomorrow: a case of electrolyte disorder due to diclofenac misuse.

BACKGROUND: The nephrotoxic effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely acknowledged. In particular, diclofenac is the most commonly prescribed NSAIDs, but no previous findings of electrolyte disturbances were reported following its administration. CASE REPORT: We presented the case of a man who experienced significant weakness associated with severe deficiencies in potassium, calcium, and magnesium after misusing diclofenac because of severe back pain. CONCLUSIONS: This case emphasizes the need of awareness about the electrolyte imbalances and electrolyte disturbances associated with the misuse of diclofenac, which is a widely available drug. This is a case report which does not need a Clinical Trial Number.

Open-Label Placebo Injection for Chronic Back Pain With Functional Neuroimaging: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability. Placebo treatments often provide as much pain relief as bona fide treatments, such as steroid injections. Open-label (honestly prescribed) placebos (OLPs) may relieve CBP without deception, but OLP mechanisms remain poorly understood. Objective: To investigate the long-term efficacy and neurobiological mechanisms of OLP for CBP. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of CBP with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) comparing OLP with usual care, with 1-year follow-up, was conducted in a university research setting and a community orthopedic clinic. Participants were individuals aged 21 to 70 years with CBP. The trial was conducted from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Data analysis was performed from April 2020 to May 2024. The primary analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat sample. Interventions: Participants randomized to OLP received a 1-time subcutaneous lumbar saline injection presented as placebo accompanied by information about the power of placebo to relieve pain, alongside their ongoing care. Usual care participants continued their ongoing care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the most intense) at 1 month posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included pain interference, depression, anxiety, anger, and sleep quality. Functional MRI was performed before and after treatment during evoked and spontaneous back pain. Results: A total of 101 adults (52 [51.4%] females; mean [SD] age, 40.4 [15.4] years) with moderate severity CBP (mean [SD], 4.10 [1.25] intensity; duration, 9.7 [8.5] years) were enrolled. Compared with usual care, OLP reduced CBP intensity posttreatment (relative reduction, 0.61; Hedges g = 0.45; 95% CI, -0.89 to 0.04; P = .02). Through 1-year follow-up, pain relief did not persist, although significant benefits were observed for depression, anger, anxiety, and sleep disruption (Hedges g = 0.3-0.5; all P < .03). Brain responses to evoked back pain for OLP vs usual care increased in rostral anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex and decreased in somatomotor cortices and thalamus. During spontaneous pain, functional connectivity analyses identified OLP vs usual care increases in ventromedial prefrontal cortex connectivity to the rostral ventral medulla, a pain-modulatory brainstem nucleus. No adverse effects of treatment were reported by participants. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of OLP vs usual care, a single nondeceptive placebo injection reduced CBP intensity for 1 month posttreatment and provided benefits lasting for at least 1 year posttreatment. Brain mechanisms of OLP in a clinical population overlap with those of deceptive placebos in healthy volunteers, including engagement of prefrontal-brainstem pain modulatory pathways. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

Opioid prescribing requirements to minimize unused medications after an emergency department visit for acute pain: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unused opioid prescriptions can be a driver of opioid misuse. Our objective was to determine the optimal quantity of opioids to prescribe to patients with acute pain at emergency department discharge, in order to meet their analgesic needs while limiting the amount of unused opioids. METHODS: In a prospective, multicentre cohort study, we included consecutive patients aged 18 years and older with an acute pain condition present for less than 2 weeks who were discharged from emergency department with an opioid prescription. Participants completed a pain medication diary for real-time recording of quantity, doses, and names of all analgesics consumed during a 14-day follow-up period. RESULTS: We included 2240 participants, who had a mean age of 51 years; 48% were female. Over 14 days, participants consumed a median of 5 (quartiles, 1-14) morphine 5 mg tablet equivalents, with significant variation across pain conditions (p < 0.001). Most opioid tablets prescribed (63%) were unused. To meet the opioid need of 80% of patients for 2 weeks, we found that those experiencing renal colic or abdominal pain required fewer opioid tablets (8 morphine 5 mg tablet equivalents) than patients who had fractures (24 tablets), back pain (21 tablets), neck pain (17 tablets), or other musculoskeletal pain (16 tablets). INTERPRETATION: Two-thirds of opioid tablets prescribed at emergency department discharge for acute pain were unused, whereas opioid requirements varied significantly based on the cause of acute pain. Smaller, cause-specific opioid prescriptions could provide adequate pain management while reducing the risk of opioid misuse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT03953534.

The erector spinae plane block vs. usual care for treatment of mechanical back pain in the emergency department: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), traditionally utilized for thoracic regional pain control, has been reported as an effective analgesic option for mechanical back pain, renal colic, and rib fractures in the emergency department (ED). This pilot study aims to compare the effectiveness of the ESPB to usual analgesic treatment for patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain. METHODS: A prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted at a Canadian community hospital from March 2020 to December 2022. Adult patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain of at least 7 out of 10 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were randomized to receive either the ESPB or usual care. The primary outcome was the difference in NPRS score reduction at ED discharge. Secondary outcomes included ED length of stay, ED opiate use, follow-up NPRS and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) scores, back pain-related return ED visits, and ongoing opiate use. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled, with 19 randomized to the ESPB cohort and 11 to the usual care cohort. The mean NPRS reduction at ED discharge was significantly higher in the ESPB group compared to the usual care group (5.4 vs. 2.2), with a difference of 3.2 (95% confidence interval 1.4-5.1). ED opiate use was lower in the ESPB group. The ESPB also resulted in a significant reduction in ED length of stay (160 min vs. 235 min). There were no reported adverse effects related to the research interventions. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that the ESPB may be an effective opioid-sparing analgesic option for patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT05982483.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le bloc raboteux spina érectile guidé par ultrasons (ESPB), traditionnellement utilisé pour le contrôle de la douleur régionale thoracique, a été signalé comme une option analgésique efficace pour les maux de dos mécaniques, les coliques rénales et les fractures des côtes au service des urgences (ED). Cette étude pilote vise à comparer l'efficacité de l'ESPB au traitement analgésique habituel pour les patients présentant à l'urgence des douleurs dorsales mécaniques. MéTHODES: Un essai contrôlé randomisé prospectif en aveugle a été mené dans un hôpital communautaire canadien de mars 2020 à décembre 2022. Les patients adultes se présentant à l'urgence avec une douleur dorsale mécanique d'au moins 7 sur 10 sur l'échelle numérique d'évaluation de la douleur (NPRS) ont été randomisés pour recevoir soit la ESPB ou les soins habituels. Le critère de jugement principal était la différence dans la réduction du score NPRS à la sortie de l'urgence. Les critères de jugement secondaires comprenaient la durée du séjour à l'urgence, l'utilisation d'opiacés à l'urgence, les scores de suivi à l'INRP et au Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), les visites de retour à l'urgence liées à la douleur dorsale et l'utilisation continue d'opiacés. RéSULTATS: Au total, 30 patients ont été recrutés, dont 19 randomisés dans la cohorte de la DGPSE et 11 dans la cohorte de soins habituels. La réduction moyenne du NPRS à la sortie de l'urgence était significativement plus élevée dans le groupe ESPB que dans le groupe de soins habituels (5,4 vs. 2,2), avec une différence de 3,2 (intervalle de confiance à 95 % 1,4-5,1). La consommation d'opiacés aux urgences était plus faible dans le groupe ESPB. La ESPB a également entraîné une réduction significative de la durée du séjour aux urgences (160 min contre 235 min). Aucun effet indésirable lié aux interventions de recherche n'a été signalé. CONCLUSION: Cette étude pilote suggère que l'ESPB peut être une option analgésique efficace épargnant les opioïdes pour les patients se présentant à l'urgence avec des douleurs dorsales mécaniques.

Perceptions in orthopedic surgery on the use of cannabis in treating pain: a survey of patients with spine pain (POSIT Spine).

BACKGROUND: Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite guidelines discouraging opioids as first-line treatment, opioids remain the most prescribed drugs for back pain. There is renewed interest in exploring the potential medical applications of cannabis, and with the recent changes in national legislation there is a unique opportunity to investigate the analgesic properties of cannabis. METHODS: This was a multi-center survey-based study examining patient perceptions regarding cannabis for spine pain. We included patients presenting with back or neck pain to one of three Orthopedic clinics in Ontario. Our primary outcome was perceived effect of cannabis on back pain, while secondary outcomes were perceptions regarding potential applications and barriers to cannabis use. RESULTS: 259 patients participated in this study, 35.3% (90/255) stating they used cannabis medically. Average pain severity was 6.5/10 ± 0.3 (95% CI 6.2-6.8). Nearly three-quarters were prescribed opioids (73.6%, 148/201), with oxycodone/oxycontin (45.9% 68/148) being the most common, and almost half of (49.3%, 73/148) had used an opioid in the last week. Patients estimated cannabis could treat 54.3% ± 4.0 (95% CI 50.3-58.3%) of their spine pain and replace 46.2% ± 6. 6 (95% CI 39.6-52.8%) of their current analgesics. Age (ß = - 0.3, CI - 0.6-0.0), higher pain severity (ß = 0.4, CI 0.1-0.6) and previous cannabis use (ß = 14.7, CI 5.1-24.4) were associated with a higher perceived effect of cannabis. Patients thought cannabis would be beneficial to treat pain (129/146, 88.4%), and reduce (116/146, 79.5%) or eliminate opioids (102/146, 69.9%). Not considering using cannabis for medical purposes (65/150, 43.3%) was the number one reported barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Patients estimated medical cannabis could treat more than half of their spine pain, with one in three patients already using medical cannabis. 79% of patients also believe cannabis could reduce opioid usage. This data will help support more research into cannabis for musculoskeletal pain.

A Good Response to Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Does Not Discriminate Patients With Longstanding Axial Spondyloarthritis From Controls With Chronic Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with longstanding axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and controls with back pain (nonspondyloarthritis [non-SpA]). METHODS: Consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain (axSpA or non-SpA), were prospectively recruited. Any previous NSAIDs were withdrawn 2 days before study start (baseline). Back pain was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS; range 0-10) starting at 2 hours after baseline and several times thereafter up to 4 weeks. "Any response" to NSAIDs was defined as improvement of back pain on the NRS > 2 units, and "good response" as improvement > 50%, compared to baseline. RESULTS: Among 233 patients included, 68 had axSpA (29.2%) and 165 had non-SpA back pain (70.8%). The mean age was 42.7 (SD 10.7) vs 49.3 (SD 11.1) years, symptom duration 15.1 (SD 11.1) years vs 14.6 (SD 11.9) years, and pain score 5.9 (SD 2.3) vs 6.3 (SD 2.0), respectively. Overall, of patients with axSpA or non-SpA back pain, 30.9% vs 29.1% of patients showed any response and 23.5% vs 16.4% of patients showed a good response after 4 weeks, respectively (P value not significant). No differences were found in the rapidity of response or between subgroups of patients based on demographics, including different stages of axSpA. CONCLUSION: No major differences in the response to NSAIDs were found between patients with axSpA and those with non-SpA with longstanding chronic back pain. The item in the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria on "response to NSAIDs" needs more study.

Hydrocortisone Differentially Affects Reinstatement of Pain-related Responses in Patients With Chronic Back Pain and Healthy Volunteers.

Despite the crucial role of effective and sustained extinction of conditioned pain-related fear in cognitive-behavioral treatment approaches for chronic pain, experimental research on extinction memory retrieval in chronic pain remains scarce. In healthy populations, extinction efficacy of fear memory is affected by stress. Therefore, we investigated the effects of oral hydrocortisone administration on the reinstatement of pain-related associations in 57 patients with non-specific chronic back pain (CBP) and 59 healthy control (HC) participants in a differential pain-related conditioning paradigm within a placebo-controlled, randomized, and double-blind design. Participants' skin conductance responses indicate hydrocortisone-induced reinstatement effects in HCs but no observable reinstatement in HCs receiving placebo treatment. Interestingly, these effects were reversed in patients with CBP, that is, reinstatement responses were only observed in the placebo and not in the hydrocortisone group. Our findings corroborate previous evidence of stress-induced effects on extinction efficacy and reinstatement of fear memory in HCs, extending them into the pain context, and call for more research to clarify the role of stress in fear extinction and return of fear phenomena possibly contributing to treatment failure in chronic pain treatment. PERSPECTIVE: Opposing effects in HCs and patients with non-specific CBP may be associated with changes in the patients' stress systems. These findings could be of relevance to optimizing psychological, extinction-based treatment approaches.

Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials generally have not assessed efficacy of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) beyond 6 months because of methodological barriers and ethical concerns. We aimed to measure the effectiveness of LTOT for up to 12 months. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP) from April 2016 through August 2022. Participants reporting LTOT (>90 days) were matched to opioid nonusers with propensity scores. Primary outcomes involved low back pain intensity, back-related disability, and pain impact measured with a numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, respectively. Secondary outcomes involved minimally important changes in primary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of 402 matched participants was 55.4 years (S.D., 11.9 years), and 297 (73.9%) were female. There were 119 (59.2%) LTOT users who took opioids continuously for 12 months. The mean daily morphine milligram equivalent dosage at baseline was 36.7 (95% CI, 32.8 to 40.7). There were no differences between LTOT and control groups in mean pain intensity (6.06, 95% CI, 5.80-6.32 vs 5.92, 95% CI, 5.68-6.17), back-related disability (15.32, 95% CI, 14.55-16.09 vs 14.81, 95% CI, 13.99-15.62), or pain impact (32.51, 95% CI, 31.33-33.70 vs 31.22, 95% CI, 30.00 to 32.43). Correspondingly, LTOT users did not report greater likelihood of minimally important changes in any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Using LTOT for up to 12 months is not more effective in improving CLBP outcomes than treatment without opioids. Clinicians should consider tapering opioid dosage among LTOT users in accordance with clinical practice guidelines.

Performance of the streamlined quality outcomes database web-based calculator: internal and external validation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: With an increasing number of web-based calculators designed to provide the probabilities of an individual achieving improvement after lumbar spine surgery, there is a need to determine the accuracy of these models. PURPOSE: To perform an internal and external validation study of the reduced Quality Outcomes Database web-based Calculator (QOD-Calc). STUDY DESIGN: Observational longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients enrolled study-wide in Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) and patients enrolled in DaneSpine at a single institution who had elective lumbar spine surgery with baseline data to complete QOD-Calc and 12-month postoperative data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for back and leg pain, EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D). METHODS: Baseline data elements were entered into QOD-Calc to determine the probability for each patient having Any Improvement and 30% Improvement in NRS leg pain, back pain, EQ-5D and ODI. These probabilities were compared with the actual 12-month postop data for each of the QOD and DaneSpine cases. Receiver-operating characteristics analyses were performed and calibration plots created to assess model performance. RESULTS: 24,755 QOD cases and 8,105 DaneSpine lumbar cases were included in the analysis. QOD-Calc had acceptable to outstanding ability (AUC: 0.694-0.874) to predict Any Improvement in the QOD cohort and moderate to acceptable ability (AUC: 0.658-0.747) to predict 30% Improvement. QOD-Calc had acceptable to exceptional ability (AUC: 0.669-0.734) to predict Any improvement and moderate to exceptional ability (AUC: 0.619-0.862) to predict 30% Improvement in the DaneSpine cohort. AUCs for the DaneSpine cohort was consistently lower that the AUCs for the QOD validation cohort. CONCLUSION: QOD-Calc performs well in predicting outcomes in a patient population that is similar to the patients that was used to develop it. Although still acceptable, model performance was slightly worse in a distinct population, despite the fact that the sample was more homogenous. Model performance may also be attributed to the low discrimination threshold, with close to 90% of cases reporting Any Improvement in outcome. Prediction models may need to be developed that are highly specific to the characteristics of the population.

Combined Rehabilitation with Alpha Lipoic Acid, Acetyl-L-Carnitine, Resveratrol, and Cholecalciferolin Discogenic Sciatica in Young People: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background and Objectives: In the Western world, back pain and sciatica are among the main causes of disability and absence from work with significant personal, social, and economic costs. This prospective observational study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a rehabilitation program combined with the administration of Alpha Lipoic Acid, Acetyl-L-Carnitine, Resveratrol, and Cholecalciferol in the treatment of sciatica due to herniated discs in young patients in terms of pain resolution, postural alterations, taking painkillers, and quality of life. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted on 128 patients with sciatica. We divided the sample into 3 groups: the Combo group, which received a combination of rehabilitation protocol and daily therapy with 600 mg Alpha Lipoic Acid, 1000 mg Acetyl-L-Carnitine, 50 mg Resveratrol, and 800 UI Cholecalciferol for 30 days; the Reha group, which received only a rehabilitation protocol; and the Supplement group, which received only oral supplementation with 600 mg Alpha Lipoic Acid, 1000 mg Acetyl-L-Carnitine, 50 mg Resveratrol, and 800 UI Cholecalciferol. Clinical assessments were made at the time of recruitment (T0), 30 days after the start of treatment (T1), and 60 days after the end of treatment (T2). The rating scales were as follows: the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ); and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). All patients also underwent an instrumental stabilometric evaluation. Results: At T1, the Combo group showed statistically superior results compared to the other groups for pain (p < 0.05), disability (p < 0.05), and quality of life (p < 0.05). At T2, the Combo group showed statistically superior results compared to the other groups only for pain (p < 0.05) and quality of life (p < 0.05). From the analysis of the stabilometric evaluation data, we only observed a statistically significant improvement at T2 in the Combo group for the average X (p < 0.05) compared to the other groups. Conclusions: The combined treatment of rehabilitation and supplements with anti-inflammatory, pain-relieving, and antioxidant action is effective in the treatment of sciatica and can be useful in improving postural stability.

[The role of structure-modifying agents in the treatment of back pain].

BACKGROUND: Back pain is currently one of the most urgent problems within pain syndromes. Inadequate treatment of nonspecific back pain, even with a relatively favorable prognosis, leads to its chronicity and decreases the patient's quality of life. The most common cause of vertebrogenic dorsopathies is spinal osteochondrosis. The etiopathogenetic basis of spinal osteochondrosis is degenerative and dystrophic changes in the intervertebral discs involving adjacent vertebrae, joints, and ligaments. Considering the experience of many years of using chondroprotective therapy in clinical practice, we performed an observational study using Ambene Bio to assess the change of pain severity over time in patients with osteochondrosis and back pain. AIM: To study the change in the severity of pain and its components in patients with back pain during therapy with Ambene Bio combined with standard therapy (NSAIDs and muscle relaxants). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with chronic lower back pain lasting more than 3 months were included in the study. CONCLUSION: The study results confirmed the high efficacy of Ambene Bio in patients with dorsopathies with an alternating treatment regimen (10 IM injections 2 mL every other day).