Sonographic peripheral nerve cross-sectional area in adults, excluding median and ulnar nerves: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Although electromyography remains the "gold standard" for assessing and diagnosing peripheral nerve disorders, ultrasound has emerged as a useful adjunct, providing valuable anatomic information. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the normative sonographic values for adult peripheral nerve cross-sectional area (CSA). METHODS: Medline and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for healthy adult peripheral nerve CSA, excluding the median and ulnar nerves. Data were meta-analyzed, using a random-effects model, to calculate the mean nerve CSA and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for each nerve at a specific anatomical location (= group). RESULTS: Thirty groups were identified and meta-analyzed, which comprised 16 from the upper extremity and 15 from the lower extremity. The tibial nerve (n = 2916 nerves) was reported most commonly, followed by the common fibular nerve (n = 2580 nerves) and the radial nerve (n = 2326 nerves). Means and 95% confidence interval (CIs) of nerve CSA for the largest number of combined nerves were: radial nerve assessed at the spiral groove (n = 1810; mean, 5.14 mm2 ; 95% CI, 4.33 to 5.96); common fibular nerve assessed at the fibular head (n = 1460; mean, 10.18 mm2 ; 95% CI, 8.91 to 11.45); and common fibular nerve assessed at the popliteal fossa (n = 1120; mean, 12.90 mm2 ; 95% CI, 9.12 to 16.68). Publication bias was suspected, but its influence on the results was minimal. DISCUSSION: Two hundred thirty mean CSAs from 15 857 adult nerves are included in the meta-analysis. These are further categorized into 30 groups, based on anatomical location, providing a comprehensive reference for the clinician and researcher investigating adult peripheral nerve anatomy.

Prospective Evaluation of Pain Flares and Time Until Pain Relief Following Musculoskeletal Corticosteroid Injections.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid injections are used ubiquitously within musculoskeletal medicine. One of the most common side effects is a postinjection pain flare, though little is known regarding this phenomenon. HYPOTHESIS: Some risk factors are related to postinjection pain flare following an ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical research study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. METHODS: Patients undergoing ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections in an academic orthopaedic and sports medicine clinic were approached to participate. Patients completed a survey immediately following their injection and again 2 weeks later, asking them about their pain and side effects. A postinjection pain flare was defined as an increase in pain, as defined by the patient. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients completed the entirety of the study, with 29 (20.7%) patients reporting a flare of pain. There was a significant effect of younger age on the development of a pain flare after the injection, estimated as 5.5% decreased odds of developing a flare per year of age (P < 0.01). Gender, injection location, body mass index (BMI), preinjection pain, and corticosteroid type had no contributing effect. When patients obtained relief following the corticosteroid injection, 60.4% had improved pain within 3 days, whereas over 93.7% obtained relief within a week. CONCLUSION: Pain flares seem to affect approximately 1 in 5 patients. With increasing age, the likelihood of postinjection pain flare becomes less likely. Sex, injection location, BMI, preinjection pain, and corticosteroid type do not seem to significantly relate to an increase in pain following injection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Corticosteroid injections are common procedures in the orthopaedic and sports medicine settings. Younger patients can be counseled on the higher likelihood of a pain flare following a corticosteroid injection.

Low theoretical fidelity hinders the research on health coaching for opioid reduction: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature in order to evaluate the effects of health coaching on patients' reduction of opioid usage and opioid discontinuation. In addition, this systematic review investigated the effects of health coaching on pain intensity, physical function, and quality of life. METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and PsychINFO) were searched from inception to December 2019. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of health coaching interventions in adult patients currently using opioids were included. We considered trials if they included any of the four defined key constructs of health coaching adopted in this review: motivational interviewing, positive psychology, the transtheoretical model, and self-determination theory Independent reviewers screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and quality of evidence using Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databased as CRD42019136201. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity between included trials. RESULTS: Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria (n = 4,516 participants). No study assessed all four constructs of health coaching. All eleven studies utilized only one of the constructs, brief motivational interviewing. Thus, we reported our results in terms of motivational interviewing. There is conflicting and very low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing may or may not be more effective than education to reduce opioid usage. There is very low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing is more effective than educational monthly diaries to reduce opioid use. There is very low to low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing is not more effective than no behavioral intervention to reduce opioid use at 6 months follow-up, treatment as usual (TAU) to improve overdose risk behaviors, and TAU to improve physical and psychological health. CONCLUSION: There is no direct evidence related to the effect of health coaching on opioid reduction. There is limited, low quality evidence to conclude brief motivational interviewing reduces opioid usage in opioid-dependent patients. Future research should focus on the impact of high theoretical health coaching interventions on opioid usage.