No abstract

IntroductionSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is recommended for the treatment of postsurgical chronic back and leg pain refractory to other treatments. We wanted to estimate the incidence and predictive factors of SCS treatment in our lumbar surgery cohort.Patients and methodsThree questionnaires (a self-made questionnaire, the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, and the Beck Depression Inventory) were sent to patients aged 18–65 years with no contraindications for the use of SCS, and who had undergone non-traumatic lumbar spine surgery in the Oulu University Hospital between June 2005 and May 2008. Patients who had a daily pain intensity of ≥5/10 with predominant radicular component were interviewed by telephone.ResultsAfter exclusions, 814 patients remained in this cohort. Of those, 21 patients had received SCS by the end of June 2015. Fifteen (71%) of these received benefit and continued with the treatment. Complications were rare. The number of patients who replied to the postal survey were 537 (66%). Eleven of them had undergone SCS treatment after their reply. Features predicting SCS implantation were daily or continuous pain, higher intensities of pain with predominant radicular pain, more severe pain-related functional disability, a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms, and reduced benefit from pain medication. The mean waiting time was 65 months (26–93 months). One hundred patients were interviewed by telephone. Fourteen seemed to be potential SCS candidates. From the eleven patients who underwent SCS after responding to the survey, two were classified as potential candidates in the phone interview, while nine were other patients. Twelve patients are still waiting for treatment to commence.ConclusionIn our region, the SCS treatment is used only for very serious pain conditions. Waiting time is too long and it may be the reason why this treatment option is not offered to all candidates.

No abstract

AbstractBackground and aimsThe symptoms of pain and depression often present concomitantly, but little is known as to how the different subtypes of depression affect surgical outcome. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in outcome after lumbar spine surgery between non-depressed patients and patients with different subtypes of depressive symptoms: non-melancholic (NmDS) and melancholic depression (MDS).MethodsThis was a cross-sectional postal survey. A self-made questionnaire, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Oswestery Low Back Disability Questionnaire (ODI) were sent to patients who had undergone lumbar spine surgery in the Oulu University Hospital between June, 2005 and May, 2008. BDI ≤ 10 were further classified into NmDS or MDS.ResultsA total of 537 patients (66%) completed the survey. Of these, 361 (67%) underwent disc surgery, 85 (16%) stabilizing surgery and 91 (17%) decompression. Participants were divided into three groups: BDI< 10 N=324 (60%), NmDS N=153 (29%) and MDS N=60 (11%). The mean ODI (SD) in the BDI<1 0 group was 16 (15), in the NmDS group 36 (15), and in the MDS group 41 (18) (p<0.001). The ODI profiles were different between the groups (p<0.001). Pain was more frequent in depressive patients (88% of MDS, 81% in NmDS and 40% in BDI < 10 patients experienced pain, p<0.001). The intensity of pain and pain-related disability was lowest among the patients in the BDI <10 group and highest among the MDS patients. Regular pain medication was used by 87% of patients in the MDS group, 93% of patients in the NmDS group, and 71% of patients in the BDI< 10 group (p<0.001). Response to pain medication with NRS (0–10) was 5.6 among MDS, 5.8 among NmDS and 6.5 among BDI< 10 patients (p<0.001).ConclusionDifferent types of depressive symptoms are associated with poor outcome after lumbar spine surgery. The outcome was worst in patients suffering from the MDS subtype. This was observed in pain intensity, functional disability and response to pain medication.ImplicationIt would be important to evaluate depression pre- and postoperatively. Offering a tailored rehabilitation programme to MDS patients should be considered.© 2016 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Background and aimNo studies have been published regarding the results of lumbar spine surgery a in population-based setting in Finland. Our objective was to investigate functional capacity and quality of life after lumbar spine surgery in a population-based cohort in Northern Finland, focusing on working-age patients.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional postal survey. Three questionnaires (a self-made questionnaire, the Oswestry Low Back Disability Questionnaire and the SF-36) were sent the patients aged 18-65 years who had undergone lumbar spine surgery due to disc herniation, instability or spinal stenosis in the Oulu University Hospital between June 2005 and May 2008.ResultsThe postal survey was sent to 814 patients, of whom 537 patients (66%) replied. Of these, 361 (67%) underwent disc surgery, 85 (16%) stabilizing surgery and 91 (17%) decompression. Pain was absent or present only occasional in 51% in the disc surgery group, whereas it was present daily in 59% in the stabilizing surgery group and in 58% in the decompression group (P < 0.001). Axial pain was slightly more intense than radicular pain. Pain was milder in the disc surgery group compared with the stabilizing surgery and decompression groups: mean (SD) axial pain with 0-10 NRS was 4.0 (2.3), 4.7 (2.4) and 4 (2.3) respectively (P = 0.002) and radicular pain 3.5 (2.6), 4.2 (2.8), 4.5 (2.6) respectively (P < 0.001). The total ODI score (mean, SD) was 20 (17) in the disc surgery group, 35 (17) in the stabilizing surgery group and 32 (17) in the decompression group (P < 0.001). The physical dimension sum score from the SF-was 42 (11) in the disc surgery group and 34 (10) in the stabilizing surgery and decompression grou (P < 0.001). Mental sum scores did not vary significantly between the groups.Conclusions and ImplicationsOutcome was good after lumbar disc operations but less favourable after stabilizing surgery and decompression regarding pain, functional capacity and quality of life. Implications. This study offers important information about outcome after lumbar spine surgery in Oulu University Hospital. It also brings out that in Finland we need systematic national spine register, with accurate pre-and postoperative data.

ABSTRACTPurposeTo investigate the effect of obesity on outcome in lumbar discectomy.MethodsA cross-sectional postal survey; a self-made questionnaire, Beck depression inventory IA (BDI IA) and the Oswestry low back disability questionnaire (ODI) were sent to the patients, who had undergone lumbar disc surgery in the Oulu University Hospital between June 2005 and May 2008. Patients were divided into three groups according to BMI: normal, pre-obese and obese. The ODI was also examined in the framework of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) to investigate its ability to describe various dimensions of functioning (body structure and functions, activities and participation).Results The postal survey was sent to 642 patients, of whom 355 (55%) replied. Males dominated in the pre-obese (66%) and obese (62%) groups (p = 0.01). Normal-weighted and pre-obese patients had lower BDI scores compared to obese patients (mean BDI: 8.0, 7.6,11.2, respectively, p = 0.035). Total ODI score was highest in the obese group compared to normal-weighted or pre-obese (20.3,18.6,26.4, respectively, p = 0.011). When ODI was linked to the ICF there were significant differences in all activity domains (mobility, self-care and interpersonal interactions and relationships) and the mobility component of the participation domain between the weight groups.Conclusions and implicationsObesity has an impact on outcome in lumbar discectomy. Obese patients had higher scores in BDI and ODI indicating mild mood disturbances and moderate functional disability. According to ICF, functional disability of obese patients was observed to some extent in all activity domains. Obese patients will be more frequently present for disc surgery and increased morbidity risk must be recognized. We need a strategy to rehabilitate and activate obese patients pre- and postoperatively.

MR guidance is an accurate and safe method for celiac plexus ablation with positive therapeutic effect.

Background and purpose Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is widely used for the treatment of chronic pain, although its mechanism of action is not known. The evidence of efficacy of PRF for neuropathic pain (NP) conditions is limited. A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled parallel study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRF in the treatment of peripheral posttraumatic NP. Methods Forty-five patients with peripheral posttraumatic NP in their upper or lower limb were randomly assigned to receive PRF or sham treatment to the injured peripheral nerve (s) causing peripheral posttraumatic NP. Only patients whose pain intensity was at least 5 on numerical rating scale (NRS) 0-10 and who had suffered from their NP for at least 6 months were included. All patients had dynamic mechanical allodynia or pinprick hyperalgesia in their painful area. They had achieved temporary pain relief of at least 50% with a local nerve block performed at a previous visit. The primary efficacy variable was the difference in 3-day mean pain intensity score from the baseline to 3 months. Other variables included response defined as ≥30% reduction in mean pain intensity at 3 months compared to baseline, Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) results, health related quality of life (SF-36) and adverse effects. The skin was anesthetized with 1% lidocaine. A radiofrequency needle was introduced through the skin, and then guided to a SMK cannula (52, 100 or 144mm depending on the target nerve) with 4 or 5mm active tip (SMK-C5-4, SMK-C10-5, SMK-C15-5, Radionics®, Burlington, MA, USA). The nerve was located accurately by stimulating at 50 Hz (threshold <0.5 V). Sham treatment or PRF was applied for 120s 1-4 times at each treatment point (Radionics®, Burlington, MA, USA). The total treatment time was up to 8 min. Both patients and clinicians were blinded during the whole treatment and follow-up period. Results Forty-three patients were included in the analyses. There was no statistically significant difference between PRF and sham treatment for the primary outcome efficacy variable. Seven patients (3 in PRF group and 4 in sham treatment group) achieved ≥30% pain relief (difference between groups was not significant). There was no statistically significant difference in the NPS or any dimension of SF-36 between the treatments. Eighteen patients reported adverse effects. They were mild and did not necessitate any treatment. Transient pain was reported by 17 patients, local irritation by 5 patients and local inflammation by 1 patient. There was no significant difference between the groups in the presence of adverse effects. Conclusions PRF was well tolerated, but this study failed to show efficacy of PRF over sham treatment for peripheral posttraumatic NP. Implications Based on our results, we do not recommend PRF for peripheral posttraumatic NP. More research of the possible use of PRF for various pain conditions is needed to determine its role in the management of prolonged pains.