Million Visual Analogue Scale Questionnaire: Validation of the Persian Version

A comparison between effectiveness of gluteal trigger point and epidural steroid injection in lumbosacral canal stenosis patients: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral Spinal Stenosis (LSS) is a degenerative spine disease and a major cause of pain and disability, especially in geriatrics. Primary symptom control in patients with LSS includes conservative treatment and non-surgical methods. In this study, we aimed to compare the effect of steroid injection via epidural and gluteal trigger point techniques.

METHODS

Patients aged 40-75 years old who had pain and other clinical signs of spinal stenosis in the last 6 months were included in our study and divided into two groups of gluteal trigger point (TP) or epidural steroid injection (ESI). The patients were evaluated based on the visual analog scale (VAS), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Quebec back pain disability scales during their pre-injection period and 2 weeks after follow-ups till 8 weeks. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients were included in our study. The TP group had a significant decrease in comparison with their follow-ups; however, in the epidural group, the significant decrease was only observed compared to the pre-injection period and the scores did not have any significant decreases after the second week regarding the ODI, RQM, and VAS scales. The TP group demonstrated significantly higher scores of decreases of ODI and Quebec score compared to the epidural group at weeks 4 and 8. Regarding RQM, the TP groups demonstrated significantly higher scores of decreases compared to the epidural group at weeks 2, 4 and 8. (p < 0.001 p = 0.008, and p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both epidural and TP steroid injection significantly reduced the patients' pain and improved their QoL and function; however, more satisfactory results were observed in the TP group during the patients' follow-ups, while the epidural group demonstrated only statistically significant improvement during the short-term follow-up.

Changes in retro-odontoid mass after upper cervical spine surgery

A non-neoplastic mass posterior to the dens is termed a retro-odontoid mass (R-OM). This retrospective study evaluated radiographic and clinical outcomes and R-OM changes after upper cervical spine surgery. This study included 69 patients who underwent upper cervical spine surgery, including atlantoaxial fusion, occipitocervical fusion, or decompression. All patients underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Six-month follow-up MRI examinations were performed in 30 patients who had preoperative R-OMs. Radiographic outcomes of the anterior and posterior atlantodental intervals were measured using X-rays and computed tomography. The R-OM and space available for the cord (SAC) were measured using MRI. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using neck and arm pain visual analog scales, the Japanese Orthopedic Association score, the neck disability index, and the patient-reported subjective improvement rate. The anterior atlantodental interval decreased, while the posterior atlantodental interval and SAC increased postoperatively. Among the clinical outcomes, the neck and arm pain and the neck disability index decreased postoperatively, while the Japanese Orthopedic Association score increased. All clinical and radiographic outcomes improved postoperatively. The R-OM either decreased in size or disappeared after fusion surgery in all cases, except in one patient who underwent decompression surgery. In conclusion, stabilization through fusion surgery is essential for treating R-OM.

Low back pain: critical assessment of various scales

PURPOSE

To study the various pain assessment tools based on their psychometric properties and ease of use.

METHODS

Published articles on psychometric properties of pain tools were accessed and data collected for low back pain (LBP)-specific tools, generic tools, neuropathic LBP tools, tools for cognitively impaired patients, and tools for acute LBP.

RESULTS

Among the LBP-specific tools, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have good construct validity and reliability, and responsiveness over short intervals. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) gauges only disability and sleep. Among the generic tools, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) show good responsiveness, but BPI is the only tool validated for LBP. Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) and Short Form-MPQ-2 (SF-MPQ-2) are both reliable tools for neuropathic LBP. For cognitively impaired patients, Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), Abbey Pain Scale (APS), and Doloplus-2 are all reliable tools, but PAINAD has good construct validity. For acute pain, Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) is reliable and responsive, but presently, unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 are the tools most preferred.

CONCLUSION

Based on psychometric properties and ease of use, the best tools for LBP seem to be RMDQ/ODI (among LBP-specific tools), BPI (among generic tools), SF-MPQ-2/NPS (for neuropathic LBP), PAINAD (for cognitively impaired patients), and unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 (for acute pain). Overall, BPI seems to be a tool that can be relied upon the most. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.