[Treatment for chronic back pain? : Active multimodal, interdisciplinary pain therapy vs. physiotherapy-physical therapy for chronic back pain]. / Behandlung bei chronischen Rückenschmerzen? : Aktive multimodale, interdisziplinäre Schmerztherapie vs. physiotherapeutisch-physikalische Therapie bei chronischen Rückenschmerzen.

BACKGROUND: In industrialized countries, chronic back pain is referred to as the "number one common disease". OBJECTIVES: Are there any indications of different outcomes of chronic back pain patients when treated with a multimodal, interdisciplinary pain therapy (MMSTh) compared to physiotherapy-physical therapy? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Entrance and final examination by means of survey, questionnaires and physical tests in the intervention and control group, evaluation and comparison of the results. RESULTS: The intervention group showed very significant improvements in all tests. In contrast, the control group achieved only partial improvements in physical parameters and quality of life. This resulted in clear group differences in favor of the MMSTh. In terms of patient satisfaction, the control group showed a better result than the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with MMSTh is superior to standard physiotherapy-physical. Due to the extensive, proven positive effect on many pain-causing and pain-preserving factors, multimodal pain centers should be used more frequently in chronic back pain patients.

Physical therapy affects endothelial function in lymphedema patients.

Lymphedema arises due to a malfunction of the lymphatic system and can lead to massive tissue swelling. Complete decongestive therapy (CDT), consisting of manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) and compression bandaging, is aimed at mobilizing fluid and reducing volume in affected extremities. Lymphatic dysfunction has previously been associated with chronic inflammation processes. We investigated plasma ADMA as an indicator of endothelial function/inflammation before-, during- and after-CDT. Also assessed were vascular function parameters such as carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWVcf), flow-mediated dilata-tion (FMD) and retinal microvasculature analysis. 13 patients (3 males and 10 females, 57 ± 8 years old (mean ± SD), 167.2 ± 8.3 cm height, 91.0 ± 23.5 kg weight), with lower limb lymphedema were included. Vascular function parameters were assessed on day 1, 2, 7, 14 and 21 of CDT, pre- and post-MLD. ADMA was significantly lower post-MLD (p=0.0064) and tended to reduce over three weeks of therapy (p=0.0506). PWVcf weakly correlated with FMD (r=0.361, p=0.010). PWVcf, FMD and retinal microvasculature analysis did not show changes due to physical therapy. The novel results from this study indicate that lymphedema does not affect endothelial func-tion and lymphedema patients may therefore not have a higher risk of cardiovas-cular diseases. Our results further suggest that manual lymphatic drainage with or without full CDT could have potentially beneficial effects on endothelial function in lymphedema patients (by reducing ADMA levels), which has not been reported previously.