Transcutaneous spinal stimulation (TSS) is a useful tool to modulate spinal sensorimotor circuits and has emerged as a potential treatment for motor disorders in neurologically impaired populations. One major limitation of TSS is the discomfort associated with high levels of stimulation during the experimental procedure. The objective of this study was to examine if the discomfort caused by TSS can be alleviated using different stimulation paradigms in a neurologically intact population. Tolerance to TSS delivered using conventional biphasic balanced rectangular pulses was compared to two alternative stimulation paradigms: a 5 kHz carrier frequency and biphasic balanced rectangular pulses combined with vibrotactile stimulation. In ten healthy participants, tolerance to TSS was examined using both single‐pulse (0.2 Hz) and continuous (30 Hz) stimulation protocols. In both the single‐pulse and continuous stimulation protocols, participants tolerated significantly higher levels of stimulation with the carrier frequency paradigm compared to the other stimulation paradigms. However, when the maximum tolerable stimulation intensity of each stimulation paradigm was normalized to the intensity required to evoke a lower limb muscle response, there were no statistical differences between the stimulation paradigms. Our results suggest that, when considering the intensity of stimulation required to obtain spinally evoked motor potentials, neither alternative stimulation paradigm is more effective at reducing discomfort than the conventional, unmodulated pulse configuration.

No abstract

This systematic review determines the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for chronic low back pain (CLBP). We queried the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I and II randomized controlled studies published in the English language investigating the efficacy of duloxetine for chronic low back pain were included. Five studies (832 duloxetine-treated patients, 667 placebo-treated patients, and 41 duloxetine and placebo crossover analysis patients) were analyzed. One study was level I evidence and four studies were level II evidence. All five studies reported statistically significant improvements in more than one back-pain-specific clinical outcome score with duloxetine versus placebo. Four studies found that duloxetine 60 mg daily leads to one or more statistically significant improvements versus placebo in Brief Pain Inventory Severity (BPI-S) scores. All five studies found no significant difference in serious adverse events (AEs) between the duloxetine and placebo groups. One study found a higher rate of total AEs among the duloxetine 120 mg group versus the placebo group; however, the same study did not find a significant difference in total AEs among duloxetine 20 mg and 60 mg groups versus placebo. Duloxetine is a safe and effective first-line option for the treatment of CLBP. Current studies demonstrate that 60 mg taken once daily has the highest efficacy for reducing pain and disability while minimizing minor adverse effects. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are necessary to determine its long-term effects.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: This systematic review compares radiographic and clinical outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral lumbar spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Summary of Background Data: The optimal method of fusion for instability from degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis remains to be an area of debate amongst spine surgeons. There are no prior comprehensive systematic review of comparative studies that compares outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I–III comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included. Results: Seven studies (672 patients, 274 noninstrumented, 398 instrumented) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, 2 randomized studies were level II, and 4 nonrandomized studies were level III. Mean follow-up ranged from 1.4 to 5.9 years. Instrumented patients had a higher rate of solid fusion (87.6% vs. 77.1%, P=0.023) and a lower rate of definitive pseudarthrosis (5.3% vs. 19.9%, P<0.001). However, there was no difference in overall functional improvement at final follow-up between the 2 treatment groups (75.0% vs. 81.7%, P=0.258). In addition, there was no difference in reoperation or complication rates. Conclusions: For the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, there are significantly higher rates of fusion among patients undergoing instrumented posterolateral fusion compared with noninstrumented posterolateral fusion. However, there is no difference in overall functional improvement, pain-related outcome scores, reoperation rates, or complication rates between the 2 treatment groups. Level of Evidence: Level III—systematic review of level I–III studies.

This systematic review compares clinical outcomes between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. A systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Pubmed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III evidence comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy were included. Five studies (242 patients, 114 PRP, 128 corticosteroid) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, two randomized studies were level II, and two non-randomized studies were level III. Final follow-up ranged from six weeks to six months. Four studies found that both PRP and corticosteroid treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in the visual analog scale (VAS). One found that only the PRP group led to a statistically significant reduction in VAS. Three studies found more significant improvements in one or more clinical outcome scores among PRP patients as compared with corticosteroid patients at the three- to six-month follow-up. Two studies found no difference in outcome score improvements between the two groups at six- to 12-week follow-up. There were no reports of major complications. There were no significant differences in minor complication rates between the two groups. In conclusion, both PRP and corticosteroid injections are safe and effective options for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. There is some evidence that PRP injection is a more effective option at long-term follow-up compared with corticosteroid injection. Further randomized controlled trials with longer-term follow-up are necessary to compare its long-term efficacy.

No abstract

No abstract

Intravenous drug users (IVDUs) have an increased risk for various types of local and systemic infections including necrotizing fasciitis (NF), which is a life-threatening bacterial soft tissue infection that requires a prompt diagnosis and treatment. Prevotella denticola is a part of the Prevotella species, which are obligate anaerobic, Gram-negative rods related to Bacteroides genus and often implicated in periodontal and dental disease, but have been associated with soft tissue infections and other systemic complications such as cerebral abscess and endocarditis. This case reports a 30-year-old female IVDU who presented with necrotizing fasciitis of the right anterior thigh with associated right knee septic arthritis due to Prevotella denticola. The patient was treated with emergent irrigation and radical debridement along with IV antibiotic treatment for eight weeks. A review of literature was performed regarding necrotizing fasciitis caused by Prevotella species. Necrotizing fasciitis caused by Prevotella species is rare; however, there must be a high index of suspicion among IVDUs to allow for a prompt diagnosis and treatment.