Identifying neuropathic back and leg pain: a cross-sectional study

Neuropathic pain in patients with rotator cuff tears

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have confirmed the existence of neuropathic pain (NeP) components in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. However, the presence of NeP in patients with rotator cuff tears has not been investigated thus far. Therefore, we studied the prevalence of NeP and the prognostic factors for NeP in patients with rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

Data were collected from 110 patients with rotator cuff tears, diagnosed by physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging, who attended an outpatient clinic between August 2013 and August 2014. The measured parameters included visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ) responses, a physical examination, and magnetic resonance imaging. To evaluate the factors associated with NeP, we performed a two-stage analysis. For univariate analysis, we used the Mann-Whitney U test. For multivariate analysis, forward stepwise regression was performed using factors that demonstrated statistical significance in the univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Patients were classified into three groups according to their PDQ score: an NeP group (n = 12; 10.9 %), possible NeP group (n = 33; 30.0 %), and a nociceptive pain (NoP) group (n = 65; 59.1 %). In the univariate analysis between the NeP group and NoP group, NeP was affected by sex (p = 0.034), VAS score (average pain during the past 4 weeks; p = 0.013), and positive Neer and Hawkins impingement signs (p = 0.039). In the multivariate analysis, VAS score (p = 0.031) was an independent prognostic factor for NeP.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the PDQ, we found that 10.9 % of patients with rotator cuff tears may have NeP. The VAS score (average pain during the past 4 weeks) was a prognostic factor for NeP. Clinicians should remain vigilant for heterogeneous etiologies of pain in patients with rotator cuff tears.

Classifying patients with lumbar spinal stenosis using painDETECT: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The pathological mechanisms of lumbar spinal stenosis are unclear. Family doctors in the primary care setting may perform medical examinations of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Our aim was to use the painDETECT questionnaire to quantify the pathological mechanisms of low back pain and/or leg pain caused by lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

We enrolled 102 patients (37 men, 65 women) who had been newly diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis at 2 facilities. The patients' conditions were evaluated using the painDETECT questionnaire, Numerical Rating Scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. The pathological mechanisms of low back pain and/or leg pain caused by lumbar spinal stenosis were classified based on results of the painDETECT questionnaire as nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, or unclear type of pain (mixed pain). Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. A value of p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

The mean age of all patients in this study was 70.3 ± 2 years. The male:female distribution was 37:65 (36.3:63.7 %). In all, 72 (70.6 %) patients had chronic pain (duration of ≥3 months), and 30 (29.4 %) had subacute or acute pain (duration of <3 months). The pain was classified as nociceptive in 59 patients (57.9 %), neuropathic in 18 (17.6 %), and unclear in 25 (24.5 %). The neuropathic pain group had a significantly lower quality of life (p < 0.05) than did the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with neuropathic back and/or leg pain caused by lumbar spinal stenosis may have lower physical and/or psychological quality of life than patients with such pain caused by other mechanisms.

The painDETECT project - far more than a screening tool on neuropathic pain

Background and objectives The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q), a simple and reliable screening questionnaire of neuropathic pain, was developed in 2004 in cooperation with the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain. The initial aim was to implement quality management and to improve the situation of neuropathic pain (NeP) patients in Germany. The PD-Q proved immediately successful and was translated into and validated in multiple languages. Subsequently a comprehensive electronic system (PD) comprising various validated questionnaires with regard to pain typical comorbidities, such as function, sleep, mood or anxiety, was implemented Germany wide. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview about the development and validation as well as the application of the PD-Q in various clinical conditions. Methods This overview is based on a literature search on English full-text papers using the term 'painDETECT' in Medline and PubMed covering the time period from 2006 to September 2015, amended with further publications cited in the retrieved publications or provided by the questionnaire developers. Results PD-Q as screening tool for NeP described in patients with lower back pain (8 studies), rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis (10), thoracotomy (2 studies), tumor diseases (4 studies), fibromyalgia (4 studies), diverse musculoskeletal conditions (12 studies) and diverse other conditions (10 studies). In addition, the PD-Q was used in 9 studies that investigated the effect of drugs for the treatment of patients with a NeP component. Conclusion To date more than 300,000 patients were assessed, providing the basis for one of the world's largest datasets for chronic pain. Among others the extensive pool of PD-Q data triggered the idea of subgrouping patients on the basis of their individual sensory profiles which might in the future lead to a stratified treatment approach and ultimately to personalized therapy. Started as a healthcare utilization project in Germany, the PD-Q is nowadays used for clinical and research purposes around the world.

Epidural steroids for spinal pain and radiculopathy: a narrative, evidence-based review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most commonly performed intervention in pain clinics across the USA and worldwide. In light of the growing use of ESIs, a recent spate of highly publicized infectious complications, and increasing emphasis on cost-effectiveness, the utility of ESI has recently come under intense scrutiny. This article provides an evidence-based review of ESIs, including the most up-to-date information on patient selection, comparison of techniques, efficacy, and complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

The data strongly suggest that ESIs can provide short-term relief of radicular symptoms but are less convincing for long-term relief, and mixed regarding cost-effectiveness. Although some assert that transforaminal ESIs are more efficacious than interlaminar ESIs, and that fluoroscopy can improve treatment outcomes, the evidence to support these assertions is limited.

SUMMARY

The cost-effectiveness of ESI is the subject of great debate, and similar to efficacy, the conclusions one draws appear to be influenced by specialty. Because of the wide disparities regarding indications and utilization, it is likely that indiscriminate use is cost-ineffective, but that judicious use in well-selected patients can decrease healthcare utilization. More research is needed to better refine selection criteria for ESI, and to determine which approach, what dose, and how many injections are optimal.

Using self-reports of pain and other variables to distinguish between older women with back pain due to vertebral fractures and those with back pain due to degenerative changes

Women with back pain and vertebral fractures describe different pain experiences than women without vertebral fractures, particularly a shorter duration of back pain, crushing pain and pain that improves on lying down. This suggests a questionnaire could be developed to identify older women who may have osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 12 % of postmenopausal women have vertebral fractures (VFs), but less than a third come to clinical attention. Distinguishing back pain likely to relate to VF from other types of back pain may ensure appropriate diagnostic radiographs, leading to treatment initiation. This study investigated whether characteristics of back pain in women with VF are different from those in women with no VFs.

METHODS

A case control study was undertaken with women aged ≥60 years who had undergone thoracic spinal radiograph in the previous 3 months. Cases were defined as those with VFs identified using the algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method. Six hundred eighty-three potential participants were approached. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaire including the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Chi-squared tests assessed univariable associations; logistic regression identified independent predictors of VFs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the ability of the combined independent predictors to differentiate between women with and without VFs via area under the curve (AUC) statistics.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven women participated: 64 cases and 133 controls. Radiographs of controls were more likely to show moderate/severe degenerative change than cases (54.1 vs 29.7 %, P = 0.011). Independent predictors of VF were older age, history of previous fracture, shorter duration of back pain, pain described as crushing, pain improving on lying down and pain not spreading down the legs. AUC for combination of these factors was 0.85 (95 % CI 0.79 to 0.92).

CONCLUSION

We present the first evidence that back pain experienced by women with osteoporotic VF is different to back pain related solely to degenerative change.

Neuropathic low back pain in clinical practice

Background and objective

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common chronic pain conditions. This paper reviews the available literature on the role of neuropathic mechanisms in chronic LBP and discusses implications for its clinical management, with a particular focus on pharmacological treatments.

Databases and data treatment

Literature searches were performed in PubMed, key pain congresses and ProQuest Dialog to identify published evidence on neuropathic back pain and its management. All titles were assessed for relevant literature.

Results

Chronic LBP comprises both nociceptive and neuropathic components, however, the neuropathic component appears under‐recognized and undertreated. Neuropathic pain (NP) is challenging to manage. Many patients with chronic LBP have pain that is refractory to existing treatments. Typically, less than half of patients experience clinically meaningful analgesia with oral pharmacotherapies; these are also associated with risks of adverse effects. Paracetamol and NSAIDs, although widely used for LBP, are unlikely to ameliorate the neuropathic component and data on the use of NP medications such as antidepressants and gabapentin/pregabalin are limited. While there is an unmet need for improved treatment options, recent data have shown tapentadol to have efficacy in the neuropathic component of LBP, and studies suggest that the capsaicin 8% patch and lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, topical analgesics available for the treatment of peripheral NP, may be a valuable additional approach for the management of neuropathic LBP.

Conclusions

Chronic LBP often has an under‐recognized neuropathic component, which can be challenging to manage, and requires improved understanding and better diagnosis and treatment.

What does this review add?

Increased recognition and improved understanding of the neuropathic component of low back pain raises the potential for the development of mechanism‐based therapies.

Open and retrospective studies suggest that agents like tapentadol and topical analgesics — such as the capsaicin 8% patch and the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster — may be effective options for the treatment of neuropathic low back pain in defined patient groups.

Effect of depression and neuropathic pain using questionnaires on quality of life in patients with low back pain; cross-sectional retrospective study

PURPOSE

The present study investigated the percentage of low back pain (LBP) patients who have depressive symptoms and neuropathic pain and analyzed the effects of these on the quality of life (QOL) in these patients.

METHODS

Of the 650 new patients with LBP that visited the hospital between June 2012 and December 2013, 309 patients who completed questionnaires to assess LBP and QOL were included in the study. The questionnaire included demographic items, the self-rated depression scale (SDS)-Zung, the Japanese version of the PainDETECT questionnaire (PDQ-J), numerical pain rating scale (NRS), and QOL assessments. The patients were divided into two groups according to their SDS-Zung scores: a nondepressed group with SDS scores <40 and a depressed group with SDS-Zung scores ≥50.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five patients (40.5 %) were classified as nondepressed and 63 (20.4 %) as depressed. The mean PDQ-J score was higher in depressed patients than in nondepressed patients. The frequency of neuropathic pain was greater in depressed patients, with neuropathic pain observed in 17 of the 63 (27 %) depressed LBP patients and 11 of the 125 (9 %) nondepressed LBP patients. The SDS-Zung and PDQ-J scores of LBP patients were correlated significantly (r = 0.261, p < 0.001). Depressed patients had higher pain NRS scores and lower QOL scores compared with nondepressed patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the depressed patients and those with neuropathic LBP had a higher level of pain, greater pain-related disability, and poorer QOL compared with nondepressed patients. This is the first study to use the SDS-Zung and PDQ-J screening questionnaires to estimate the presence of neuropathic pain associated with depressive symptoms in LBP patients and to evaluate the impact of these on QOL.

Evaluation and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Clinically Focused Review for Primary Care Specialists

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. In the absence of a classification system for pain syndromes, classification of LBP on the basis of the distribution of pain as axial (pain generally localized to the low back) or radicular neuropathic (pain radiating to the lower extremities) is relevant to clinical practice because the distribution of pain is often a corollary of frequently occurring disease processes involving the lumbar spine. Common sources of axial LBP include the intervertebral disc, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, and paraspinal musculature, whereas common sources of radicular pain include a herniated intervertebral disc and spinal stenosis. The accuracy of historical and physical examination findings has been established for sacroiliac joint pain, radiculopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. However, the accuracy of similar data, so-called red flags, for identifying the underlying medical sources of LBP has been overstated. Diagnostic imaging studies can be useful, and adherence to established guidelines can protect against overuse. Multiple pharmacological trials exist for the management of LBP; however, the long-term outcomes of commonly used drugs are mixed. For carefully selected patients with axial LBP, radiofrequency denervation techniques can provide sustained pain relief. In patients with radicular pain, transforaminal epidural steroid injections may provide short-term pain relief, but neurostimulation may confer more enduring benefits of refractory symptoms. Pain-related indications for commonly performed operations include spinal decompression for radicular symptoms as well as spinal fusion or disc prosthesis for discogenic LBP. Physical modalities and psychological treatments can improve pain and functioning, but patient preferences may influence treatment adherence.

Characteristics of patients with low back and leg pain seeking treatment in primary care: baseline results from the ATLAS cohort study

Background

Patients with back pain radiating to the leg(s) report worse symptoms and poorer recovery than those with back pain alone. Robust evidence regarding their epidemiological profile is lacking from primary care, the setting where most of these patients will present and be managed. Our objective was to describe the characteristics of patients with back and leg pain, including sciatica, seeking treatment in primary care.

Methods

Adults visiting their general practitioner with back and leg pain, of any duration and severity, were invited to participate. Participants completed questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments and received MRI scans. Characteristics of the sample are described, and differences between patients diagnosed with referred leg pain and those with sciatica are analysed.

Results

Six hundred nine patients participated; 62.6 % were female, mean (SD) age 50.2 (13.9). 67.5 % reported pain below the knee, 60.7 % were in paid employment with 39.7 % reporting time off work. Mean disability (RMDQ) was 12.7 (5.7) and mean pain intensity was 5.6 (2.2) and 5.2 (2.4) for back and leg respectively. Mean sciatica bothersomeness index (SBI) was 14.9 (5.1). Three quarters (74.2 %) were clinically diagnosed as having sciatica. In the sciatica group, leg pain intensity, neuropathic pain, pain below the knee, leg pain worse than back pain, SBI and positive MRI findings were significantly higher as compared to patients with referred leg pain.

Conclusions

This primary care cohort reported high levels of disability and pain. This is the first epidemiological study of unselected primary care patients seeking healthcare for back and leg pain. Follow-up of this cohort will investigate the prognostic value of their baseline characteristics. This new information will contribute to our understanding of the characteristics and clinical features of this population, and will underpin future research aimed at defining prognostic subgroups to enable better targeting of health care provision.

Diagnosing and treating chronic musculoskeletal pain based on the underlying mechanism(s)

Until recently, most clinicians considered chronic pain to be typically due to ongoing peripheral nociceptive input (i.e., damage or inflammation) in the region of the body where the individual is experiencing pain. Clinicians are generally aware of a few types of pain (e.g., headache and phantom limb pain) where chronic pain is not due to such causes, but most do not realize there is not a single chronic pain state where any radiographic, surgical, or pathological description of peripheral nociceptive damage has been reproducibly shown to be related to the presence or severity of pain. The primary reason for this appears to be that both the peripheral and central nervous systems play a critical role in determining which nociceptive input being detected by sensory nerves in the peripheral tissues will lead to the perception of pain in humans. This manuscript reviews some of the latest findings regarding the neural processing of pain, with a special focus on how clinicians can use information gleaned from the history and physical examination to assess which mechanisms are most likely to be responsible for pain in a given individual, and tailors therapy appropriately. A critical construct is that, within any specific diagnostic category (e.g., fibromyalgia (FM), osteoarthritis (OA), and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are specifically reviewed), individual patients may have markedly different peripheral/nociceptive and neural contributions to their pain. Thus, just as low back pain has long been acknowledged to have multiple potential mechanisms, so also is this true of all chronic pain states, wherein some individuals will have pain primarily due to peripheral nociceptive input, whereas in others peripheral (e.g., peripheral sensitization) or central nervous system factors ("central sensitization" or "centralization" of pain via augmented pain processing in spinal and brain) may be playing an equally or even more prominent role in their pain and other symptoms.

Epidural steroid injections compared with gabapentin for lumbosacral radicular pain: multicenter randomized double blind comparative efficacy study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy.

DESIGN

A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes.

SETTINGS

Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923.

Epidural steroid injections: an updated review on recent trends in safety and complications

SUMMARY 

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs), which can provide significant but temporary pain relief in well-selected patients, are the most commonly performed procedure in pain management. The anatomy of the epidural space provides a framework for understanding risks associated with ESIs, a topic relevant to both patients and physicians in interventional pain, surgery and primary care. Safety considerations of epidural steroids include drug preparation and myriad physiological effects stemming from steroid exposure. Although major complications associated with ESI occur rarely, potentially catastrophic events resulting from infectious, hematologic and neurologic morbidity may lead to permanent injury. The safety profile of ESIs may improve with development and dissemination of sound injection technique, safer compounds manufactured in a sterile manner and deficient of thromboembolic potential and the application of existing technology.

Screening for neuropathic characteristics in failed back surgery syndromes: challenges for guiding treatment

OBJECTIVE

Neuropathic pain screening tools have shown promise in identifying common neuropathic pain characteristics that derive from diverse etiologies (e.g., diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia). However, no prior studies have specifically assessed whether these tools are capable of discerning the underlying pain mechanisms in the vast, heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS).

DESIGN

In this clinical observational study, two tests for neuropathic pain characteristics, the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 (DN4) and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) questionnaires, were performed on 43 subjects with FBSS. Subjects underwent physical or neurosensory exam components of the DN4 and LANSS in the region of most severe pain (e.g., axial low back or lower extremities). DN4 and LANSS scores were correlated with clinical history and neurologic exam, pain-related quality of life questionnaires, and compared to an independent assessment of pain distribution.

RESULTS

The presence of neuropathic characteristics, determined by the DN4 (62% sensitivity, 44% specificity), LANSS (38% sensitivity, 75% specificity; cut-offs of 4 and 12, respectively), or their combination (20% sensitivity, 58% specificity) was associated with higher pain intensity as measured by the visual analog scale (DN4 > 4, P = 0.001; LANSS ≥ 12, P = 0.042), modified Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (DN4 > 4, P = 0.001; LANSS ≥ 12, P = 0.082), and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (DN4 > 4, P = 0.001; LANSS ≥ 12, P = 0.001), and greater pain-related functional impairment as measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (DN4 > 4, P = 0.006; LANSS ≥ 12, P = 0.018). The percentage of subjects characterized as neuropathic by the DN4 and LANSS lacked concordance (67.4 vs. 25.6), and the distribution of most severe symptoms (i.e., axial vs radicular) did not correlate with subjects determined to have neuropathic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike other neuropathic syndromes, the neuropathic component of FBSS is less reliably identified by the LANSS and DN4.

The presence of meniscal lesions is a strong predictor of neuropathic pain in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional pilot study

Introduction

Pain in osteoarthritis (OA) has been classically attributed to joint structural damage. Disparity between the degree of radiographic structural damage and the severity of symptoms implies that factors other than the joint pathology itself contribute to the pain. Peripheral and central sensitization have been suggested as two of the underlying mechanisms that contribute to pain in OA. The aim of this study was to explore in symptomatic knee OA patients, the structural changes assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that could be used as markers of neuropathic pain (NP).

Methods

This cross-sectional observational pilot study included 50 knee OA patients with moderate to severe pain (VAS ≥40) in the target knee. The presence of NP was determined based on the PainDETECT questionnaire. Among the 50 patients included, 25 had PainDETECT score ≤12 (unlikely NP), 9 had PainDETECT score between 13 and 18 (uncertain NP) and 16 had PainDETECT score ≥19 (likely NP). WOMAC, PainDETECT, and VAS pain scores as well as knee MRI were assessed.

Results

Data showed no significant difference in demographic characteristics between the three groups. However, a positive and statistically significant association was found between the WOMAC pain (P <0.001), function (P <0.001), stiffness (P = 0.007) and total (P <0.001) scores as well as higher VAS pain score (P = 0.023), and PainDETECT scores. Although no difference was found in the cartilage volume between groups, the presence of meniscal extrusion in both medial (P = 0.006) and lateral (P = 0.023) compartments, and presence of meniscal tears in the lateral compartment (P = 0.011), were significantly associated with increasing PainDETECT score. Moreover, the presence of bone marrow lesions in the lateral plateau and the extent of the synovial membrane thickness in the lateral recess were associated with increasing PainDETECT scores (P = 0.032, P = 0.027, respectively).

Conclusions

In this study, meniscal lesions, particularly extrusion, were found to be among the strongest risk factors for NP in knee OA patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01733277. Registered 16 November 2012.

Diagnosis and pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain among patients with chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain consists of both nociceptive and neuropathic mechanisms and can be classified as a mixed pain syndrome. Neuropathic component of chronic low back pain has often been under-recognized and under-treated by the physicians. Recent studies have demonstrated that approximately 20%-55% of chronic low back pain patients have neuropathic pain symptoms. An altered peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal processing of pain arising as a result of a lesion affecting the nerves system are the major contributor to neuropathic low back pain. The clinical evaluation is still the gold standard for assessment and diagnosis of neuropathic low back pain. Although diagnosis can be difficult due to the lack of reliable gold standard diagnostic test for neuropathic low back pain, screening tools may help non-specialists, in particular, to identify potential patients with neuropathic low back pain who require further diagnostic evaluation and pain management. Several screening tools for neuropathic pain have been developed and tested with different patient populations. Among the screening tools, the painDETECT questionnaire and the Standardized Evaluation of Pain are validated in patients with low back pain. The Standardized Evaluation of Pain may lead to more effective in discriminating between neuropathic and nociceptive pain in patients with low back pain according to the higher rate of sensitivity and its validity in patients with low back pain. However, the most appropriate approach is still to combine findings on physical and neurologic examinations and patient’s report in distinguishing neuropathic pain from nociceptive pain. The clinical examination including bedside sensory tests is still the best available tool for assessment and diagnosis neuropathic pain among patients with chronic low back pain. Due to the fact that chronic low back pain consists of both nociceptive and neuropathic mechanisms, a multimodal treatment approach is more rational in the management of patients with chronic low back pain. Therefore, combination therapy including drugs with different mechanisms of action should be given to the patients with chronic low back pain.

One-year follow-up for the therapeutic efficacy of pregabalin in patients with leg symptoms caused by lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

Pregabalin is a well-accepted treatment option for patients with neuropathic pain. However, the therapeutic efficacy of pregabalin for reducing the incidence of spinal surgery to treat leg symptoms in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyze the therapeutic efficacy of pregabalin for reducing the incidence of spinal surgery for leg symptoms in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis during the first year of treatment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis at our hospital from January to June 2009 were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug monotherapy and formed the control group (n = 47; 22 males, 25 females). Patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis at our hospital between August 2010 and October 2011 were treated with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and pregabalin combination therapy and formed the pregabalin group (n = 49; 27 males, 22 females). The proportions of patients who underwent spinal surgery during the first year of treatment were assessed and compared between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. In addition, the periods in which patients decided to undergo spinal surgery were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Six patients (12.2%) in the pregabalin group and 22 patients (46.8%) in the control group underwent spinal surgery during the first year of treatment (P = 0.0035). The period in which patients decided to undergo spinal surgery was significantly delayed in the pregabalin group compared with the control group in those for whom spinal surgery was necessary (P = 0.0128).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and pregabalin combination therapy may result in a lower incidence of spinal surgery during the first year of treatment or a delayed period before undergoing spinal surgery if necessary compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug monotherapy in patients with leg symptoms caused by lumbar spinal stenosis.

Epidural steroid injection in korean pain physicians: a national survey

Background

Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is one of the most common procedures for patients presenting low back pain and radiculopathy. However, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes appropriate steroid use for ESIs. To investigate optimal steroid injection methods for ESIs, surveys were sent to all academic pain centers and selected private practices in Korea via e-mail.

Methods

Among 173 pain centers which requested the public health insurance reimbursements for their ESIs and were enrolled in the Korean Pain Society, 122 completed questionnaires were returned, for a rate of 70.5%; also returned were surveys from 39 academic programs and 85 private practices with response rates of 83.0% and 65.9%, respectively.

Results

More than half (55%) of Korean pain physicians used dexamethasone for ESIs. The minimum interval of subsequent ESIs at the academic institutions (3.1 weeks) and the private practices (2.1 weeks) were statistically different (P = 0.01).

Conclusions

Although there was a wide range of variation, there were no significant differences between the academic institutions and the private practices in terms of the types and single doses of steroids for ESIs, the annual dose of steroids, or the limitations of doses in the event of diabetes, with the exception of the minimum interval before the subsequent ESI.

Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most widely utilized pain management procedure in the world, their use supported by more than 45 placebo-controlled studies and dozens of systematic reviews. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there continues to be considerable controversy surrounding their safety and efficacy. The results of clinical trials and review articles are heavily influenced by specialty, with those done by interventional pain physicians more likely to yield positive findings. Overall, more than half of controlled studies have demonstrated positive findings, suggesting a modest effect size lasting less than 3 months in well-selected individuals. Transforaminal injections are more likely to yield positive results than interlaminar or caudal injections, and subgroup analyses indicate a slightly greater likelihood for a positive response for lumbar herniated disk, compared with spinal stenosis or axial spinal pain. Other factors that may increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in clinical trials include the use of a nonepidural (eg, intramuscular) control group, higher volumes in the treatment group, and the use of depo-steroid. Serious complications are rare following ESIs, provided proper precautions are taken. Although there are no clinical trials comparing different numbers of injections, guidelines suggest that the number of injections should be tailored to individual response, rather than a set series. Most subgroup analyses of controlled studies show no difference in surgical rates between ESI and control patients; however, randomized studies conducted by spine surgeons, in surgically amenable patients with standardized operative criteria, indicate that in some patients the strategic use of ESI may prevent surgery.

Back complaints in older adults: prevalence of neuropathic pain and its characteristics

OBJECTIVE

Neuropathic symptoms are reported in 16-55.6% of patients with back pain. Studies were performed in various populations; however, none focused on older adults. The aim of the study was to assess prevalence of neuropathic pain in older adults with back pain.

METHODS

Prevalence of neuropathic pain, measured with the Dolour Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4), was assessed in the Back Complaints in the Elders study (Netherlands). Patients (>55 years) consulting their general practitioner with a new episode of back complaints were included. Two DN4-versions were used: one based on interview plus physical examination, the other based on interview alone. In the interview plus physical examination version, patients' and complaint characteristics were compared between groups with different scores (0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4). The DN4 interview-version compared patients with negative and positive scores.

RESULTS

Of the 261 included patients available for analysis were 250 patients (95.8%) with the DN4 interview plus physical examination, and 259 patients (99.2%) with the DN4 interview. In DN4 interview plus physical examination (N = 250), five patients (2%) scored positive (score ≥4). Higher score was associated with pain radiating below the knee (P < 0.001) and use of paracetamol (P = 0.02). In DN4 interview (N = 259), 29 (11.2%) patients scored positive (score ≥3). Positive score was associated with higher body mass index (P = 0.01), pain radiating below the knee (P = 0.001), and use of paracetamol (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In older adults with back pain presenting with a new episode in primary care, prevalence of neuropathic pain is low and seems to be associated with pain radiating below the knee, use of paracetamol, and higher body mass index.

Axial low back pain: one painful area--many perceptions and mechanisms

Axial low back pain can be considered as a syndrome with both nociceptive and neuropathic pain components (mixed-pain). Especially neuropathic pain comprises a therapeutic challenge in practical experience and may explain why pharmacotherapy in back pain is often disappointing for both the patient and the therapist. This survey uses epidemiological and clinical data on the symptomatology of 1083 patients with axial low back pain from a cross sectional survey (painDETECT). Objectives were (1) to estimate whether neuropathic pain contributes to axial low back pain and if so to what extent. (2) To detect subgroups of patients with typical sensory symptom profiles and to analyse their demographic data and co-morbidities. (3) To compare patients with and without prior intervertebral disc surgery (IVD). Neuropathic pain components could be detected in 12% of the entire cohort. Cluster analyses of these patients revealed five distinct subgroups of patients showing a characteristic sensory profile, i.e. a typical constellation and combination of symptoms. All subgroups occurred in relevant numbers and some showed distinct neuropathic characteristics while others showed nociceptive features. Post-IVD-surgery patients showed a tendency to score more “neuropathic” than patients without surgery (not statistically significant). Axial low back pain has a high prevalence of co-morbidities with implication on therapeutic aspects. From these data it can be concluded that sensory profiles based on descriptor severity may serve as a better predictor for therapy assessment than pain intensity or sole diagnosis alone. Standardized phenotyping of pain symptoms with easy tools may help to develop an individualized therapy leading to a higher success rate in pharmacotherapy of axial low back pain.

Clinical features of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics: a symptom-based assessment using the pain DETECT questionnaire

BACKGROUND

In general, chronic pain is categorized into two mechanism-based groups: nociceptive and neuropathic pain. This dichotomous approach is questioned and a dimensional perspective is suggested. The present study investigated neuropathic characteristics in different syndromes of chronic pain. We also examined the association of neuropathic characteristics with various pain related and psychological variables.

METHODS

From April 2010 to January 2012, 400 patients suffering from a chronic pain condition enrolled for multidisciplinary pain treatment were considered for inclusion in the study. Criteria for inclusion were age over 18 years and having chronic pain according to ICD-10 (F45.41) criteria. The pain DETECT questionnaire was used to assess neuropathic characteristics of pain.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven percent of patients with different pain diagnoses demonstrated distinct neuropathic characteristics. The diagnostic groups for neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain and post traumatic or surgical pain showed the most neuropathic features. The level of depression, pain chronicity and intensity, disability and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in patients suffering from neuropathic symptoms. A high level of depression and pain chronicity as well as high intensity of pain explained most of the variance in the neuropathic scores. Disability and length of hospital stay significantly predicted neuropathic characteristics only when examined separately, but not if included in a common regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

Any type of chronic pain may have more or less neuropathic characteristics. The pain-related parameters of high intensity and chronicity as well as negative affectivity and functional disability strongly correlate with neuropathic characteristics of pain.

Untangling nociceptive, neuropathic and neuroplastic mechanisms underlying the biological domain of back pain

SUMMARY Current clinical practice guidelines advocate a model of diagnostic triage for back pain, underpinned by the biopsychosocial paradigm. However, limitations of this clinical model have become apparent: it can be difficult to classify patients into the diagnostic triage categories; patients with ‘nonspecific back pain‘ are clearly not a homogenous group; and mean effects of treatments based on this approach are small. In this article, it is proposed that the biological domain of the biopsychosocial model needs to be reconceptualized using a neurobiological mechanism-based approach. Recent evidence about nociceptive and neuropathic contributors to back pain is outlined in the context of maladaptive neuroplastic changes of the somatosensory system. Implications for clinical practice and research are discussed.

An observational descriptive study of the epidemiology and treatment of neuropathic pain in a UK general population

Background

This study updated our knowledge of UK primary care neuropathic pain incidence rates and prescribing practices.

Methods

Patients with a first diagnosis of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) or phantom limb pain (PLP) were identified from the General Practice Research Database (2006 – 2010) and incidence rates were calculated. Prescription records were searched for pain treatments from diagnosis of these conditions and the duration and daily dose estimated for first-line and subsequent treatment regimens. Recording of neuropathic back and post-operative pain was investigated.

Results

The study included 5,920 patients with PHN, 5,340 with PDN, and 185 with PLP. The incidence per 10,000 person-years was 3.4 (95% CI 3.4, 3.5) for PHN; and 0.11 (95% CI 0.09, 0.12) for PLP. Validation of the PDN case definition suggested that was not sensitive. Incident PHN increased over the study period. The most common first-line treatments were amitriptyline or gabapentin in the PDN and PLP cohorts, and amitriptyline or co-codamol (codeine-paracetamol) in PHN. Paracetamol, co-dydramol (paracetamol-dihydrocodeine) and capsaicin were also often prescribed in one or more condition. Most first-line treatments comprised only one therapeutic class. Use of antiepileptics licensed for neuropathic pain treatment had increased since 2002–2005. Amitriptyline was the only antidepressant prescribed commonly as a first-line treatment.

Conclusion

The UK incidence of diagnosed PHN has increased with the incidence of back-pain and post-operative pain unclear. While use of licenced antiepileptics increased, prescribing of therapy with little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain is still common and consequently treatment was often not in-line with current guidance.

Pelvic floor muscle exercise for chronic low back pain

Objective

To assess the effect of pelvic floor muscle exercise in patients with chronic low back pain.

Methods

Adults (aged ≥18 years) with chronic low back pain (with or without radiculopathy) were randomized to undergo either routine treatment (ultrasonography, short wave diathermy and lumbar strengthening exercises; control group) or routine treatment with pelvic floor exercises (intervention group) for 24 weeks. Pain, disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score) and trunk muscle function were assessed at baseline and after completion of treatment.

Results

The study included 47 patients (control group n = 24; intervention group n = 23). Pain severity and ODI scores were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group after 24 weeks. There were no significant between-group differences in trunk muscle function.

Conclusion

Pelvic floor exercise in combination with routine treatment provides significant benefits in terms of pain relief and disability over routine treatment alone.

A meta-analysis of core stability exercise versus general exercise for chronic low back pain

Objective

To review the effects of core stability exercise or general exercise for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).

Summary of Background Data

Exercise therapy appears to be effective at decreasing pain and improving function for patients with chronic LBP in practice guidelines. Core stability exercise is becoming increasingly popular for LBP. However, it is currently unknown whether core stability exercise produces more beneficial effects than general exercise in patients with chronic LBP.

Methods

Published articles from 1970 to October 2011 were identified using electronic searches. For this meta-analysis, two reviewers independently selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating core stability exercise versus general exercise for the treatment of patients with chronic LBP. Data were extracted independently by the same two individuals who selected the studies.

Results

From the 28 potentially relevant trials, a total of 5 trials involving 414 participants were included in the current analysis. The pooling revealed that core stability exercise was better than general exercise for reducing pain [mean difference (−1.29); 95% confidence interval (−2.47, −0.11); P = 0.003] and disability [mean difference (−7.14); 95% confidence interval (−11.64, −2.65); P = 0.002] at the time of the short-term follow-up. However, no significant differences were observed between core stability exercise and general exercise in reducing pain at 6 months [mean difference (−0.50); 95% confidence interval (−1.36, 0.36); P = 0.26] and 12 months [mean difference (−0.32); 95% confidence interval (−0.87, 0.23); P = 0.25].

Conclusions

Compared to general exercise, core stability exercise is more effective in decreasing pain and may improve physical function in patients with chronic LBP in the short term. However, no significant long-term differences in pain severity were observed between patients who engaged in core stability exercise versus those who engaged in general exercise.

Systematic Review Registration

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42011001717.

Clinical presentation and manual therapy for lower quadrant musculoskeletal conditions

Chronic lower quadrant injuries constitute a significant percentage of the musculoskeletal cases seen by clinicians. While impairments may vary, pain is often the factor that compels the patient to seek medical attention. Traumatic injury from sport is one cause of progressive chronic joint pain, particularly in the lower quarter. Recent studies have demonstrated the presence of peripheral and central sensitization mechanisms in different lower quadrant pain syndromes, such as lumbar spine related leg pain, osteoarthritis of the knee, and following acute injuries such as lateral ankle sprain and anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Proper management of lower quarter conditions should include assessment of balance and gait as increasing pain and chronicity may lead to altered gait patterns and falls. In addition, quantitative sensory testing may provide insight into pain mechanisms which affect management and prognosis of musculoskeletal conditions. Studies have demonstrated analgesic effects and modulation of spinal excitability with use of manual therapy techniques, with clinical outcomes of improved gait and functional ability. This paper will discuss the evidence which supports the use of manual therapy for lower quarter musculoskeletal dysfunction.

Prevalence of neuropathic features of back pain in clinical populations: implications for the diagnostic triage paradigm

SUMMARY Contemporary clinical assessment of back pain is based on the diagnostic triage paradigm. The most common diagnostic classification is nonspecific back pain, considered to be of nociceptive etiology. A small proportion are diagnosed with radicular pain, of neuropathic origin. In this study we review the body of literature on the prevalence of neuropathic features of back pain, revealing that the point prevalence is 17% in primary care, 34% in mixed clinical settings and 53% in tertiary care. There is evidence that neuropathic features of back pain are not restricted to typical clinical radicular pain phenotypes and may be under-recognized, particularly in primary care. The consequence of this is that in the clinic, diagnostic triage may erroneously classify patients with nonspecific back pain or radicular pain. A promising alternative is the development of mechanism-based pain phenotyping in patients with back pain. Timely identification of contributory pain mechanisms may enable greater opportunity to select appropriate therapeutic targets and improve patient outcomes.

Epidural steroid injections

Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is the most commonly performed intervention in pain clinics across the United States. This article provides an evidence-based review of ESI, including data on efficacy, patient selection, comparison of types, and complications. The data strongly suggest that ESI can provide short-term relief for radicular symptoms but are less compelling for long-term effects or relief of back pain. Although it has been asserted that transforaminal ESIs are more efficacious than interlaminar injections, the evidence supporting this is limited.