Descriptive Epidemiology, Medical Evaluation, and Outcomes of Rock Climbing Injuries.

OBJECTIVE: To gather epidemiologic data on injury type, treatment, and recovery from rock climbing injuries. METHODS: Design: retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: rock climbers who sustained a climbing-related injury during the prior 24 months. Criteria for inclusion: aged ≥18 years; participation in rock climbing at least 4 times per year in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: none. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: percentage of injured climbers seeking medical care, providers seen, subspecialty referral, development of chronic problems, factors affecting return to climbing, injuries by climbing type, body region, and injury type. RESULTS: Data were collected over a 60-day period using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) survey system. Seven hundred and eight surveys were collected from 553 male and 155 female climbers. Thirteen hundred ninety seven injuries were reported, and 975 injuries were suitable for analysis. The most common provider initially seen was a primary care provider. Subspecialty referral was commonly obtained. Injury patterns differed by climbing type. The percentage of respondents that returned to climbing before their injury was fully healed was 51.1%, and 44.9% of respondents developed chronic problems related to their climbing injury. Twenty-eight percent of respondents were unable to return to their previous level of climbing performance. Several factors were associated with delayed recovery from climbing injury. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of climbers sought healthcare after injury. A majority of climbers who sought treatment were referred to subspecialist providers. About one-half of climbers were symptomatic when they returned to climbing and developed chronic problems after injury. Factors associated with slower return to climbing included increasing age, smoking, fractures, and surgery.

Clinical impression versus standardized questionnaire: the spinal surgeon's ability to assess psychological distress.

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress can affect spine surgery outcomes. A majority of spinal surgeons do not use standardized questionnaires to assess for psychological distress and instead rely on their clinical impressions. The ability of spinal surgeons to properly assess patients with psychological distress has not been adequately evaluated. Our hypothesis was that the clinical impressions of spinal surgeons were not as accurate as a standardized questionnaire in assessing for psychological distress. METHODS: A prospective study was performed with eight physicians, four spinal surgeons and four nonoperative spine specialists, who evaluated 400 patients. All patients completed the Distress and Risk Assessment Method (DRAM) questionnaire for the evaluation of psychological distress. The eight physician subjects, blinded to the results of this questionnaire, performed their routine clinical evaluation and categorized the patients' psychological distress level. The results of the Distress and Risk Assessment Method questionnaire and the surgeons' assessments were compared. RESULTS: In the study population of 400 patients, 64% (254 of 400) were found to have some level of psychological distress. Twenty-two percent (eighty-seven of 400) of the patients were found to have high levels of distress. Overall, the physicians' rate of sensitivity when assessing patients with high levels of distress was 28.7% (95% confidence interval: 19.5%, 39.4%) with a positive predictive value of 47.2% (95% confidence interval: 33.3%, 61.4%). Nonoperative spine specialists had a significantly higher sensitivity rate when assessing highly distressed patients (41.7% [95% confidence interval: 25.5%, 59.2%]) than surgeons (19.6% [95% confidence interval: 9.8%, 33.1%]) (p = 0.03). The sensitivity rates between experienced (greater than ten years in practice) (14.7% [95% confidence interval: 5.0%, 31.1%]) and less experienced (less than two years in practice) (29.4% [95% confidence interval: 10.3%, 56.0%]) spinal surgeons was not significant (p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of patients (64%) presenting for spine evaluation have some level of psychological distress. When compared with a standardized questionnaire designed to screen for psychological distress, spinal surgeons had low sensitivity rates to detect this distress. The routine use of a standardized questionnaire to screen for psychological distress should be considered.

A pilot study examining the effectiveness of physical therapy as an adjunct to selective nerve root block in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain from disk herniation: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic selective nerve root blocks (SNRBs) are a common intervention for patients with sciatica. Patients often are referred to physical therapy after SNRBs, although the effectiveness of this intervention sequence has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study was a preliminary investigation of the effectiveness of SNRBs, with or without subsequent physical therapy, in people with low back pain and sciatica. DESIGN: This investigation was a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: The settings were spine specialty and physical therapy clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-four participants (64% men; mean age=38.5 years, SD=11.6 years) with low back pain, with clinical and imaging findings consistent with lumbar disk herniation, and scheduled to receive SNRBs participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to receive either 4 weeks of physical therapy (SNRB+PT group) or no physical therapy (SNRB alone [SNRB group]) after the injections. INTERVENTION: All participants received at least 1 SNRB; 28 participants (64%) received multiple injections. Participants in the SNRB+PT group attended an average of 6.0 physical therapy sessions over an average of 23.9 days. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 8 weeks, and 6 months with the Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, a numeric pain rating scale, and the Global Rating of Change. RESULTS: Significant reductions in pain and disability occurred over time in both groups, with no differences between groups at either follow-up for any outcome. Nine participants (5 in the SNRB group and 4 in the SNRB+PT group) underwent surgery during the follow-up period. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study were a relatively short-term follow-up period and a small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: A physical therapy intervention after SNRBs did not result in additional reductions in pain and disability or perceived improvements in participants with low back pain and sciatica.

Efficacy of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To critically review the best available studies evaluating the efficacy of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) in the treatment of radicular pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database were searched for the period between 1950 and May 2008. Search terms included epidural steroid injection (ESI), transforaminal ESI, foraminal ESI, selective nerve root block, nerve root injection (NRI), selective NRI, periradicular infiltration, and periradicular injection. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English, which evaluated the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided TFESIs were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were analyzed with a quality checklist modeled after the 2001 CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials. Nine studies were found to include a majority of these items. DATA EXTRACTION: Data included study design, inclusion criteria, symptom duration, randomization protocol, blinding protocol, intervention, control, outcomes, follow-up, dropout, statistical analysis, and conclusions. DATA SYNTHESIS: Each article was assigned a level of evidence: I (high-quality RCT) or II (RCT with <80% follow-up, no blinding or improper randomization). Studies were divided according to control, and overall evidence was graded as A (good), B (fair), C (conflicting/poor quality), or I (insufficient). CONCLUSIONS: 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.