Faculty Bibliography

Objective. This pilot study was designed to evaluate the impact of a home-based aerobic conditioning program on symptoms of fibromyalgia and determine if changes in symptoms were related to quantitative changes in aerobic conditioning (VO(2) max). Methods. Twenty-six sedentary individuals diagnosed with fibromyalgia syndrome participated in an individualized 12-week home-based aerobic exercise program with the goal of daily aerobic exercise of 30 minutes at 80% of estimated maximum heart rate. The aerobic conditioning took place in the participants' homes, outdoors, or at local fitness clubs at the discretion of the individual under the supervision of a physical therapist. Patients were evaluated at baseline and completion for physiological level of aerobic conditioning (VO(2) max), pain ratings, pain disability, depression, and stress. Results. In this pilot study subjects who successfully completed the 12-week exercise program demonstrated an increase in aerobic conditioning, a trend toward decrease in pain measured by the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form and a weak trend toward improvements in visual analog scale, depression, and perceived stress. Patients who were unable or unwilling to complete this aerobic conditioning program reported significantly greater pain and perceived disability (and a trend toward more depression) at baseline than those who completed the program. Conclusions. Patients suffering from fibromyalgia who can participate in an aerobic conditioning program may experience physiological and psychological benefits, perhaps with improvement in symptoms of fibromyalgia, specifically pain ratings. More definitive trials are needed, and this pilot demonstrates the feasibility of the quantitative VO2 max method. Subjects who experience significant perceived disability and negative affective symptoms are not likely to maintain a home-based conditioning program, and may need a more comprehensive interdisciplinary program offering greater psychological and social support.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes related to analgesia, function, mortality, and adverse effects of oral opioid analgesics and spinal steroid injections on low back pain syndromes. DESIGN: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched in September 2009 using combinations of terms related to spinal pain and its treatment. A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with low back pain syndromes and that evaluated patient outcomes after intervention using either oral opioids or spinal steroid injections. RESULTS: Eight high-quality and ten moderate-quality randomized controlled trials were identified. One high-quality study on oral opioid therapy showed significant improvements in pain relief and patient function. Those on spinal steroid injections had a decreased Visual Analog Scale pain score by 7.18 (95% confidence interval, 2.21-12.1) points more than the control group at 1 mo or less and by 0.429 (95% confidence interval, -4.41 to 5.27) points at 1-3 mos. At more than 6 mos, there was no significant benefit: 0.930 (95% confidence interval, -5.03 to 6.89). Spinal steroids decreased the Oswestry Disability Index by 3.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.480-6.57) at 1 mo or less, by -0.281 (95% confidence interval, -3.18 to 2.62) at 1-3 mos, by -11.0 (95% confidence interval, -14.8 to -7.16) at 3-6 mos, and by -0.205 (95% confidence interval, -3.50 to 3.09) compared with the control group at 6 mos or more, suggesting that there was improvement in function. All-cause mortality was low in our analysis of patients attending specialty clinics. It was difficult to assess the adverse effects of opioid therapy because they influenced up to 28% of patients to withdraw from the original studies. In terms of spinal steroid injections, headache appeared to be the most common adverse effect. However, there was no significantly increased risk of headaches associated with spinal steroids compared with control injections: odds ratio, 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: Oral opioid therapy may be helpful for the treatment of low back pain, but it is unclear from the high-quality literature whether there are limitations from adverse effects. Spinal steroid injections are beneficial for low back pain and disability in the short-term. The high dropout rates caused by insufficient pain relief and adverse effects suggest that opioids may not be as effective as spinal steroid injections. There is more high-quality literature to support the use of spinal steroid injections compared with oral opioids in this condition

Significant numbers of patients with chronic LBP are caught in a steady state of receiving long-term opioids vs. serial spinal steroid injections. Given efforts reduce healthcare costs and minimize AE, it is imperative that the outcomes from these two treatment arms be compared using the same criteria. Objectives: examine outcomes related to analgesia, function, mortality, and AE. Methods: Relevant databases were searched. Articles meeting following criteria were selected for review: (1) open-label or blind prospective RCT (2) subjects diagnosed with non-neoplastic LBP or lumbar radiculopathy, aged >18, and treated with oral opioids or spinal steroid injections. Results: Eight high-quality and 10 moderatequality RCTs were identified. Patients receiving spinal steroid injections' pain decreased by VAS, by 7.18[95%CI 2.21-12.1] points greater than the control at <1 month and by 0.429[95%CI (-)4.41-5.27] points at 1-3 months. At >6 months no significant benefit 0.930[95%CI (-)5.03-6.89]. High-quality study on oral opioids showed improvements in patients' analgesia. Spinal steroids decreased ODI by 3.53[95%CI 0.480-6.57] at <1 month, by (-)0.281[95%CI (-)3.18-2.62] at 1-3 months, by (-)11.0[95%CI (-)14.8-(-)7.16] at 3-6 months, and by (-)0.205[95%CI (-)3.50-3.09] at >=6 months, suggesting short-term improvement in function. High-quality study on opioids showed improved function. More AE associated with opioid use but no mortality with either intervention. Conclusions: Oral opioids helpful for treatment of LBP but there are limitations due to AE. Spinal steroid injections beneficial for LBP and disability in the short-term. High dropout rates from insufficient pain relief suggest that opioids may not be as effective as spinal steroids for LBP. There is more high-quality literature to support use of spinal steroid injections compared to oral opioids

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this pilot study is to understand the relationship between physicians' characteristics and physicians' management decisions about pain. The secondary aim is to understand how patient characteristics, including race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) may affect these treatment decisions in chronic low back pain. METHODS: We conducted a double-blinded randomized controlled study using a survey instrument. Ninety physicians were randomly allocated one of two scenarios of a patient with chronic low back and lower extremity pain. In one version, the patient is a Caucasian male with Blue Cross health insurance. In the other version, the patient is an African American male with Medicaid. All other aspects of the survey scenarios are identical. The physicians were subsequently presented with questionnaires about their treatment plans. We analyzed the physician demographic variables in addition to patient ethnicity and SES to differentiate which variables affected treatment preferences. RESULTS: Based on bivariate analysis, physician specialty, gender, ethnicity, and professional status significantly affected treatment plans, including analgesic prescription and referrals for invasive therapy. Patient ethnicity/SES trended toward significance for the prescription of opioids. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first randomized controlled study assessing patient and treatment variables in the management of chronic pain. It suggests that physicians' demographic variables and perhaps patient demographic variables influence pain management decisions

Low back pain is the most common pain symptom experienced by American adults and is the second most common reason for primary care physician visits. There are many structures in the lumbar spine that can serve as pain generators and often the etiology of low back pain is multifactorial. However, the facet joint has been increasingly recognized as an important cause of low back pain. Facet joint pain can be diagnosed with local anesthetic blocks of the medial branches or of the facet joints themselves. Subsequent radiofrequency lesioning of the medial branches can provide more long-term pain relief. Despite some of the pitfalls associated with facet joint blocks, they have been shown to be valid, safe, and reliable as a diagnostic tool. Medial branch denervation has shown some promise for the sustained control of lumbar facet joint-mediated pain, but at this time, there is insufficient evidence that it is a wholly efficacious treatment option. Developing a universal algorithm for evaluating facet joint-mediated pain and standard procedural techniques may facilitate the performance of larger outcome studies. This review article provides an overview of the anatomy, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of facet joint-mediated pain