Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Neurosurg Spine ; 21(1): 79-90, 2014 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24980590

RESUMEN

The medical literature continues to fail to support the use of lumbar epidural injections for long-term relief of chronic back pain without radiculopathy. There is limited support for the use of lumbar epidural injections for shortterm relief in selected patients with chronic back pain. Lumbar intraarticular facet injections are not recommended for the treatment of chronic lower-back pain. The literature does suggest the use of lumbar medial nerve blocks for short-term relief of facet-mediated chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy. Lumbar medial nerve ablation is suggested for 3-6 months of relief for chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy. Diagnostic medial nerve blocks by the double-injection technique with an 80% improvement threshold are an option to predict a favorable response to medial nerve ablation for facet-mediated chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy, but there is no evidence to support the use of diagnostic medial nerve blocks to predict the outcomes in these same patients with lumbar fusion. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of trigger point injections for chronic lowerback pain without radiculopathy.


Asunto(s)
Inyecciones Epidurales/normas , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/terapia , Vértebras Lumbares/efectos de los fármacos , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Bloqueo Nervioso/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/terapia , Fusión Vertebral/normas , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/patología , Vértebras Lumbares/patología , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/patología
2.
J Neurosurg Spine ; 21(1): 133-9, 2014 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24980594

RESUMEN

The relationship between the formation of a solid arthrodesis and electrical and electromagnetic energy is well established; most of the information on the topic, however, pertains to the healing of long bone fractures. The use of both invasive and noninvasive means to supply this energy and supplement spinal fusions has been investigated. Three forms of electrical stimulation are routinely used: direct current stimulation (DCS), pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation (PEMFS), and capacitive coupled electrical stimulation (CCES). Only DCS requires the placement of electrodes within the fusion substrate and is inserted at the time of surgery. Since publication of the original guidelines, few studies have investigated the use of bone growth stimulators. Based on the current review, no conflict with the previous recommendations was generated. The use of DCS is recommended as an option for patients younger than 60 years of age, since a positive effect on fusion has been observed. The same, however, cannot be stated for patients over 60, because DCS did not appear to have an impact on fusion rates in this population. No study was reviewed that investigated the use of CCES or the routine use of PEMFS. A single low-level study demonstrated a positive impact of PEMFS on patients undergoing revision surgery for pseudarthrosis, but this single study is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of PEMFS in this patient population.


Asunto(s)
Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/normas , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Osteogénesis , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/cirugía , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/terapia , Fusión Vertebral/normas , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Vértebras Lumbares/patología , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/patología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA