[Back pain in the primary care setting : Specific back pain]

Radicular Pain Management Using Ultrasound-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Scoping Review of Comparative Studies

Back pain is the leading cause of disability globally and results in a substantial medical and economic burden. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) have been widely used as a treatment for back pain with radiculopathy of various etiologies. Ultrasound guidance (UG) for delivering ESIs can reduce costs and facilitate the procedure in resource-limited settings compared to the current standard technique of using fluoroscopic guidance (FG). This scoping review aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between UG and FG ESIs in the treatment of radicular pain. Systematic searches of Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), and ClinicalTrials.gov were conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies investigating the outcomes between UG and FG ESIs in the treatment of radicular pain were included. The risk of bias for included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. From 1,659 potentially relevant publications, eight studies (five RCTs and three retrospective comparative studies) were included. Five of the studies were conducted in the Republic of Korea, one in China, one in India, and one in Egypt. All studies reported no significant difference between UG and FG ESIs in success rate, pain index, and postoperative disability (p > 0.05). One study reported increased intravascular injections in the FG group, but this did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). One study reported decreased needle-placement time in the UG group (p < 0.001). One study reported decreased total operation time in the UG group (p < 0.05). Overall, treatment outcomes and adverse events profile are comparable between UG and FG ESIs for radicular pain. UG ESIs reduce costs, minimize radiation exposure, facilitate vessel identification, prevent injury, and potentially save intraoperative time while offering the same benefits as FG injections. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and the impact of UG ESIs on patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Personalized assessment and management of non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Low back pain (LBP), and in particular non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), which accounts for approximately 90% of LBP, is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. In clinical trials, LBP is often poorly categorized into 'specific' versus 'non-specific' and 'acute' versus 'chronic' pain. However, a better understanding of the underlying pain mechanisms might improve study results and reduce the number of NSLBP patients.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Narrative review.

RESULTS

NSLBP is a multi-dimensional, biopsychosocial condition that requires all contributing dimensions to be assessed and prioritized. Thereby, the assessment of the contribution of nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain mechanisms forms the basis for personalized management. In addition, psychosocial (e.g. anxiety, catastrophizing) and contextual factors (e.g. work situation) as well as comorbidities need to be assessed and individually weighted. Personalized treatment of NSLBP further requires individually choosing treatment modalities, for example, exercising, patient education, cognitive-behavioural advice, pharmacotherapy, as well as tailoring treatment within these modalities, for example, the delivery of tailored psychological interventions or exercise programs. As the main pain mechanism and psychosocial factors may vary over time, re-assessment is necessary and treatment success should ideally be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the main contributing pain mechanism and the integration of the patients' view on their condition, including beliefs, preferences, concerns and expectations, are key in the personalized clinical management of NSLBP. In research, particular importance should be placed on accurate characterization of patients and on including outcomes relevant to the individual patient.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Here, a comprehensive review of the challenges associated with the diagnostic label 'non-specific low back pain' is given. It outlines what is lacking in current treatment guidelines and it is summarized what is currently known with respect to individual phenotyping. It becomes clear that more research on clinically meaningful subgroups is needed to best tailor treatment approaches.

[Lower back pain in the primary care setting - Non-specific and specific pain]

A systematic survey of the symptoms of back pain in terms of triggering event and onset, nature and the extent of influenceability of the pain (lying or standing, under stress, nocturnal pain, localized percussion tenderness, B- symptoms, etc.), as well as structured clinical examination (segment height, radiance, projection, reflex status, sensitivity and motor function) allows an initial and therefore orienting classification of back pain as non-specific or specific. In the primary care setting many patients can be treated extremely effectively and economically from a cost perspective. In addition to the fastest possible pain relief, it is important to prevent the disease becoming chronic. A wide range of pharmacological treatment can be combined with non-pharmacological measures, such as early on exercises, promoting every day mobility, physiotherapy, manual therapy etc.. 20 % of patients with lower back pain have a determinable cause that needs to be rapidly identified. In addition to laboratory diagnostics, structured morphological imaging is necessary. Causes of specific back pain include: fractures, infections, radiculopathy, tumors, axial spondylarthritis as well as extravertebral causes. In the further cause of treatment, it may be necessary to consult medical specialists in the fields of radiology, orthopedics, neurology, neurosurgery, rheumatology, psychotherapy, psychiatry, among others. Treatment is managed by the primary care provider, who should also receive and re-evaluate all findings during the course of the disease.

[Spinal ozone therapy]

Klinisches/methodisches Problem

Technische Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der spinalen interventionellen Neuroradiologie ermöglichen es, eine breite Palette an gezielten, minimal-invasiven Behandlungsoptionen einschließlich der spinalen Ozontherapie beim Rückenschmerz anzuwenden. Dieser Beitrag gibt eine Übersicht der biochemischen, molekularen, immunologischen und pharmazeutischen Mechanismen sowie Applikationstechniken der gezielten Ozontherapie.

Radiologische Standardverfahren

Zum Einsatz kommen die Computertomographie (CT) sowie konventionelle Röntgenaufnahmen (Durchleuchtung).

Leistungsfähigkeit

Die CT-gesteuerten Interventionen (epidural, periradikuläre, Facettengelenk und intradiskal) haben den höchsten Stellenwert und haben sich historisch durchgesetzt. Durchleuchtungsgesteuerte Verfahren können ebenfalls eingesetzt werden.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Ozontherapie liefert vielversprechende Ergebnisse. Der Beitrag soll dazu dienen, Informationen über die Grundlagen dieser Technik(en) zu vermitteln.