PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A D Furlan

Publications and source records attributed to A D Furlan.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Although low-back pain is usually a self-limiting and benign disease that tends to improve spontaneously over time, a large variety of therapeutic interventions are available for its treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of acupuncture for the treatment of non-specific low-back pain and dry-needling for myofascial pain syndrome in the low-back region. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the searches from 1996 to February 2003 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We also searched the Chinese Cochrane Centre database of clinical trials and Japanese databases to February 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of acupuncture (that involves needling) for adults with non-specific (sub)acute or chronic low-back pain, or dry-needling for myofascial pain syndrome in the low-back region. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality (using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group) and extracted data. The trials were combined using meta-analyses methods or levels of evidence when the data reported did not allow statistical pooling. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs were included; 20 were published in English, seven in Japanese, five in Chinese and one each in Norwegian, Polish and German. There were only three trials of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. They did not justify firm conclusions, because of small sample sizes and low methodological quality of the studies. For chronic low-back pain there is evidence of pain relief and functional improvement for acupuncture, compared to no treatment or sham therapy. These effects were only observed immediately after the end of the sessions and at short-term follow-up. There is evidence that acupuncture, added to other conventional therapies, relieves pain and improves function better than the conventional therapies alone. However, effects are only small. Dry-needling appears to be a useful adjunct to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. No clear recommendations could be made about the most effective acupuncture technique. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data do not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and "alternative" treatments. The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. Because most of the studies were of lower methodological quality, there certainly is a further need for higher quality trials in this area.

Acupuncture Therapy↗
PubMed2004

Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a form of therapy used to treat certain types of chronic pain. It involves an electrical generator that delivers pulses to a targeted spinal cord area. The leads can be implanted by laminectomy or percutaneously and the source of power is supplied by an implanted battery or by an external radio-frequency transmitter. The exact mechanism of action of SCS is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in relieving certain kinds of pain, as well as the complications and adverse effects of this procedure. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to September 2003; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 3, 2003); textbooks and reference lists in retrieved articles. We also contacted experts in the field of pain and the main manufacturer of the stimulators. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials with a control group, either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs), that assessed spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers selected the studies, assessed study quality and extracted the data. One of the assessors of methodological quality was blinded to authors, dates and journals. The data were analysed using qualitative methods (best evidence synthesis). MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs (81 patients in total) met our inclusion criteria. One was judged as being of high quality (score of 3 on Jadad scale) and the other of low quality (score of 1 on Jadad scale). One trial included patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I (reflex sympathetic dystrophy) and the other patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome. The follow-up periods varied from 6 to 12 months. Both studies reported that SCS was effective, however, meta-analysis was not undertaken because of the small number of patients and the heterogeneity of the study population. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there is limited evidence in favour of SCS for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I, more trials are needed to confirm whether SCS is an effective treatment for certain types of chronic pain. In addition, there needs to be a debate about trial designs that will provide the best evidence for assessing this type of intervention.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2003

Muscle relaxants for non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The use of muscle relaxants in the management of non-specific low back pain is controversial. It is not clear if they are effective, and concerns have been raised about the potential adverse effects involved. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine if muscle relaxants are effective in the treatment of non-specific low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: A computer-assisted search of the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 up to October 2001) and EMBASE (1988 up to October 2001) was carried out. These databases were searched using the algorithm recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. References cited in the identified articles and other relevant literature were screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and/or double-blinded controlled trials, involving patients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain, treated with muscle relaxants as monotherapy or in combination with other therapeutic modalities, were included for review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently carried out the methodological quality assessment and data extraction of the trials. The analysis comprised not only a quantitative analysis (statistical pooling) but also a qualitative analysis ("best evidence synthesis"). This involved the appraisal of the strength of evidence for various conclusions using a rating system based on the quality and outcomes of the studies included. Evidence was classified as "strong", "moderate", "limited", "conflicting" or "no" evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three trials (77%) were of high quality, 24 trials (80%) were on acute low back pain. Four trials studied benzodiazepines, 11 non-benzodiazepines and two antispasticity muscle relaxants in comparison with placebo. Results showed that there is strong evidence that any of these muscle relaxants are more effective than placebo for patients with acute LBP on short-term pain relief. The pooled RR for non-benzodiazepines versus placebo after two to four days was 0.80 [95% CI; 0.71 to 0.89] for pain relief and 0.49 [95% CI; 0.25 to 0.95] for global efficacy. Adverse events, however, with a relative risk of 1.50 [95% CI; 1.14 to 1.98] were significantly more prevalent in patients receiving muscle relaxants and especially the central nervous system adverse effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI; 1.23 to 3.37). The various muscle relaxants were found to be similar in performance. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Muscle relaxants are effective in the management of non-specific low back pain, but the adverse effects require that they be used with caution. Trials are needed that evaluate if muscle relaxants are more effective than analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2001

A critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the methodology of systematic reviews of conservative therapies for chronic nonspecific low back pain and to study the relation between the methodologic quality and other characteristics of these reviews. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Systematic reviews offer a concise summary of the evidence on treatment effectiveness, but flaws in their methodology can lead to invalid conclusions with serious implications for quality of patient care. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and the Cochrane Library were conducted. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by two blinded authors using three inclusion criteria: 1) chronic nonspecific low back pain, 2) systematic review, and 3) conservative treatment intervention. Data were extracted from each review by three authors. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 1102 titles and abstracts; 109 met inclusion criteria. A review of the full text of these articles excluded an additional 73 articles. Data abstraction and methodologic assessment were conducted on 36 articles reviewing 19 discrete interventions. The average quality score was 4.1, ranging from 1 (low) to 7 (high). There was a trend for recent reviews to be of higher quality. Fifty-six percent of the reviews had positive conclusions, but they had lower quality scores compared with those that had negative or uncertain conclusions. There were 27 (73%) qualitative and 10 (27%) quantitative summaries of results. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall quality of systematic reviews was satisfactory, the quality of the individual papers included in the reviews varied considerably. The reviews often provided contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of a wide range of commonly used conservative interventions for chronic nonspecific low back pain. These findings illustrate the pitfalls of systematic reviews where there are a number of low-quality trials and underscore the need for high-quality primary trials that will allow for more conclusive reviews.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Gabapentin for neuropathic pain: systematic review of controlled and uncontrolled literature.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy/effectiveness and side effects of gabapentin for the treatment of neuropathic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. METHODS: Extensive search of several electronic databases located both controlled and uncontrolled studies. Efficacy was assessed through meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas the effectiveness of gabapentin in uncontrolled studies was assessed via a novel system of dichotomous classification of "bad" versus "good" results. FINDINGS: Thirty-five papers involving 727 patients with multiple neuropathic pain conditions met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of the 2 high-quality, placebo-controlled RCTs showed positive effect of gabapentin in diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia. The addition of 2 low-quality, placebo-controlled RCTs did not alter the magnitude or direction of observed effect. The uncontrolled studies demonstrated positive effect on pain in different neuropathic syndromes, as well as benefit on different types of neuropathic pain; highest dose administered and rate-of-dose escalation showed wide variability between prescribers. Fewer and less severe side effects were reported in the uncontrolled studies. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin seems to be effective in multiple painful neuropathic conditions. The variable prescribing patterns of the uncontrolled studies raise the suspicion that effectiveness may be reduced if one limits administration of the drug to very low doses, whereas rapid dose escalation may be associated with increased central nervous system side effects. Well-designed controlled trials may provide insight into differential symptom sensitivity to the drug.

Acetates↗
PubMed2001

Chemical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain: does it work? Case report and systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if chemical sympathectomy successfully reduces limb neuropathic pain. DESIGN: Systematic literature review of the effectiveness of phenol or alcohol sympathectomy for extremity neuropathic pain. PATIENT: A 29-year-old female with complex regional pain syndrome of both lower extremities after back surgery who was submitted to bilateral lumbar chemical sympathectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, and EMBASE were systematically searched. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) For the patient in question: spontaneous pain, allodynia, pinprick hyperalgesia, pressure evoked pain; (2) For the literature review: meaningful versus nonmeaningful pain relief based on degree and duration (>2 weeks) of pain relief. RESULTS: (1) The case reported experienced partial temporary relief of pain primarily related to selective modulation of allodynia, but not deep pain or pinprick hyperalgesia; (2) 44% of 66 patients in 13 studies that met the authors' inclusion criteria experienced meaningful pain relief. Whereas 19% experienced no meaningful relief, for the remaining 37% of the patients no conclusions regarding duration and degree of relief could be drawn due to poor reporting of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the case reported and systematic literature review, chemical sympathectomy seems to have at best a temporary effect, limited to cutaneous allodynia. Despite the popularity of chemical sympatholysis, only few patients and poorly defined outcomes are reported in the literature, substantiating the need for well-designed studies on the effectiveness of the procedure.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Massage for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern societies. Proponents of massage therapy claim it can minimize pain and disability, and speed return to normal function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of massage therapy for non-specific low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Healthstar, CINAHL and Dissertation abstracts from 1966 to 1999 with no language restrictions. References in the included studies and in reviews of the literature were also screened. Contact with content experts and massage associations were also made. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included randomized, quasi-randomized or controlled clinical trials that investigated the use of any type of massage (using the hands or a mechanical device) as a treatment for nonspecific low back pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer applied the selection criteria and extracted the data. Two reviewers (one blinded to authors, institutions and journals) independently assessed the quality of each trial. A qualitative analysis (best-evidence synthesis) was performed due to clinical heterogeneity among the included trials and insufficient data reported. MAIN RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Two trials were of high and two of low methodological quality. None evaluated massage as the main intervention. Rather, it was the control intervention in studies evaluating manipulation, electrical stimulation, and a lumbar corset. There is limited evidence showing that massage is less effective than manipulation immediately after the first session and moderate evidence showing it is less effective than TENS during the course of sessions in relieving pain and improving activity. At the completion of treatment and at 3 weeks after discharge there is no difference among massage and manipulation, electrical stimulation or corsets, but this evidence is limited. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on the studies reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to recommend massage as a stand-alone treatment for non-specific low back pain. There is a need for high quality controlled trials to further evaluate the effects of massage for this condition.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Are we paying a high price for surgical sympathectomy? A systematic literature review of late complications.

The purpose of this article was to systematically review the literature in order to assess (1) the current indications for surgical sympathectomy and (2) the incidence of late complications collectively and per indication. All types of upper or lower limb surgical sympathectomies are included. An extensive search strategy looked for controlled trials and observational studies or case series with an english abstract. Out of 1,024 abstracts from MEDLINE and 221 from EMBASE, 135 articles reporting on 22,458 patients and 42,061 procedures (up to april 1998) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Weighted means were used to control for heterogeneity of data. No controlled trials were found. The main indication was primary hyperhidrosis in 84.3% of the patients. Compensatory hyperhidrosis occurred in 52.3%, gustatory sweating in 32.3%, phantom sweating in 38.6%, and horner's syndrome in 2.4% of patients, respectively, with cervicodorsal sympathectomy, more often after open approach. Neuropathic complications (after cervicodorsal and lumbar sympathectomy) occurred in 11.9% of all patients. Compensatory hyperhidrosis occurred 3 times more often if the indication was palmar hyperhidrosis instead of neuropathic pain (52.3% versus 18.2%), whereas neuropathic complications occurred 3 times more often if the treatment was for neuropathic pain instead of palmar hyperhidrosis (25.2% versus 9.8%). Surgical sympathectomy, irrespective of approach, is accompanied by several potentially disabling complications. Detailed informed consent is recommended when surgical sympathectomy is contemplated.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1993

The role of coronary arteriography in demonstration of mural thrombosis after angioplasty. Insights from an experimental model.

Although intracoronary thrombosis often occurs after angioplasty and may affect its outcome, the accuracy of arteriography for identification of mural thrombi is unclear. This study analyzed the relationship between arteriographic abnormalities immediately before death and the histologic extent of thrombosis in 77 dogs submitted to balloon injury of intact left anterior descending coronary arteries. Survival time after angioplasty was 120 min. The incidence of mural thrombosis, defined on serial histologic sections, was 65.0 percent. A positive diagnosis of intracoronary thrombus at arteriography (AT+) was based on the presence of any of the following signs: filling defects, retention of contrast material, and slowed or interrupted flow. Seventeen dogs were AT+, and 60 were AT-. The overall sensitivity of arteriography was 34 percent, and the specificity was 100 percent. Even considering as significant only thrombi greater than 25.0 percent of the arterial lumen area, 11 of 27 dogs were AT- despite thrombus sizes between 27 percent and 75 percent of lumen area (sensitivity, 59 percent); arteriography consistently missed smaller thrombi (22 of 23 dogs were AT-). Arterial diameters and balloon-induced injury were similar between AT- and AT+ dogs. Scanning electron microscopy depicted a fibrin-poor thrombus in 14 of 19 AT+ dogs and a fibrin-rich thrombus in five, whereas all seven AT+ dogs had fibrin-rich thrombi. Logistic regression analysis showed a correlation between thrombus size and arteriographic positivity, whereas the presence of fibrin and slowed flow of contrast material did not independently predict positive arteriographic results. Thus, arteriography is inaccurate for identification of mural thrombosis after angioplasty, mostly because of its poor sensitivity.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗