Reliability of Quantitative Sensory Tests in a Low Back Pain Population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Reliability is an essential condition for using quantitative sensory tests (QSTs) in research and clinical practice, but information on reliability in patients with chronic pain is sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of different QST in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS Eighty-nine patients with chronic low back pain participated in 2 identical experimental sessions, separated by at least 7 days. The following parameters were recorded: pressure pain detection and tolerance thresholds at the toe, electrical pain thresholds to single and repeated stimulation, heat pain detection and tolerance thresholds at the arm and leg, cold pain detection threshold at the arm and leg, and conditioned pain modulation using the cold pressor test.Reliability was analyzed using the coefficient of variation, the coefficient of repeatability, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. It was judged as acceptable or not based primarily on the analysis of the coefficient of repeatability. RESULTS The reliability of most tests was acceptable. Exceptions were cold pain detection thresholds at the leg and arm. CONCLUSIONS Most QST measurements have acceptable reliability in patients with chronic low back pain.

Spine radiography in the evaluation of back and neck pain in an orthopaedic emergency clinic

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Despite the recommendations of national and international societies for the treatment of patients with acute neck and back pain, still too many radiologic examinations were performed. The purpose of this study was to analyze and optimize diagnostics and treatment of patients with acute back pain. METHODS The medical records of 484 patients presented to the emergency clinic with acute neck or back pain were analyzed for clinical history, physical examination, radiographic findings and therapy. RESULTS Radiographs of the lumbar, cervical, or thoracic spine were performed in 338 cases (70%). Radiographs were normal in 142 patients (42%) and degenerative changes were identified in 123 patients (36%). Only 2 patients (0.4%) had radiographic findings that had direct therapeutic relevance: 1 patient with metastatic disease and 1 patient with posttraumatic C1-C2 instability. For most patients without sensorimotor deficits and absent specific indications for radiography (“red flags”), therapy was not affected by the results of radiography. CONCLUSIONS Plain radiography of the spine was unnecessary in most patients initially evaluated with non-specific acute back pain and does not improve the clinical outcome. The implementation of national and international guidelines is a slow process, but helps to reduce costs and to protect patients from unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure.

Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study.

INTRODUCTION Surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been associated with poorer outcomes in patients with pronounced low back pain (LBP) as compared to patients with predominant leg pain. This cross registry study assessed potential benefits of the interlaminar coflex® device as an add-on to bony decompression alone. METHODS Patients with lumbar decompression plus coflex® (SWISSspine registry) were compared with decompressed controls (Spine Tango registry). Inclusion criteria were LSS and a preoperative back pain level of ≥5 points. 1:1 propensity score-based matching was performed. Outcome measures were back and leg pain relief, COMI score improvement, patient satisfaction, complication, and revision rates. RESULTS 50 matched pairs without residual significant differences but age were created. At the 7-9 months follow-up interval the coflex® group had higher back (p=0.014) and leg pain relief (p<0.001) and COMI score improvement (p=0.029) than the decompression group. Patient satisfaction was 90% in both groups. No revision was documented in the coflex® and one in the decompression group (2.0%). DISCUSSION In the short-term, lumbar decompression with coflex® compared with decompression alone in patients with LSS and pronounced LBP at baseline is a safe and effective treatment option that appears beneficial regarding clinical and functional outcomes. However, residual confounding of non-measured covariables may have partially influenced our findings. Also, despite careful inclusion and exclusion of cases the cross registry approach introduces a potential for selection bias that we could not totally control for and that makes additional studies necessary.