About Entrez
Text Version
Entrez PubMed
Overview
Help |
FAQ
Tutorial
New/Noteworthy
E-Utilities
PubMed Services
Journals Database
MeSH Database
Single Citation Matcher
Batch Citation Matcher
Clinical Queries
LinkOut
Cubby
Related Resources
Order Documents
NLM Catalog
NLM Gateway
TOXNET
Consumer Health
Clinical Alerts
ClinicalTrials.gov
PubMed Central
|
|
Items 1 - 3 of 3 |
One page. |
Randomised trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: outcomes and patients' preference.
Moffett JA, Jackson DA, Richmond S, Hahn S, Coulton S, Farrin A, Manca A, Torgerson DJ.
Institute of Rehabilitation, University of Hull, Hull HU3 2PG.
OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with "usual" physiotherapy for patients with neck pain. Secondly, to evaluate the effect of patients' preferences on outcome. DESIGN: Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of randomisation. SETTING: Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. PARTICIPANTS: 268 patients (mean age 48 years) with subacute and chronic neck pain, who were referred by their general practitioner and randomly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention (one to three sessions) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy, at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), a specific measure of functional disability resulting from neck pain. Also, the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, a generic, health related, quality of life measure; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia, a measure of fear and avoidance of movement. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group (mean difference 1.99, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52; P=0.01). Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention, the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention (below 1.2 points of NPQ score). Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain. Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach. Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further.
PMID: 15585539 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Recent advances in postoperative pain therapy.
Power I.
Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Little France, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK.
PMID: 15579488 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Recovery of Pain Control by Intensive Reprogramming after Loss of Benefit from Motor Cortex Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain.
Henderson JM, Boongird A, Rosenow JM, Lapresto E, Rezai AR.
Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Introduction: Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) may serve as an adjunct in managing neuropathic pain after other conservative and interventional methods have failed. However, the magnitude and duration of the benefit are highly variable, with a significant percentage of patients losing pain relief over time. We investigated whether intensive reprogramming could recapture the beneficial effects of MCS. Methods: Six patients who had previously undergone MCS implantation for neuropathic pain but had lost benefit were brought back for 1-5 days of intensive reprogramming. Four patients were evaluated as inpatients while the others were seen as outpatients during multiple visits over several days. Several hours a day were spent with each patient. Patients completed visual analog scale (VAS) ratings at intervals throughout the reprogramming period to judge effectiveness of stimulation. Pre- and postadjustment VAS were compared using a paired t test. Results: The patients' average age was 50 years (range 26-71). The diagnoses were trigeminal neuropathic pain (2 patients), complex regional pain syndrome I (2), phantom limb pain (1) and poststroke pain (1). The mean duration of pain was 6 years. The MCS benefit had initially lasted for a mean of 7.16 months (range 2-18 months). After reprogramming, 5 of 6 patients experienced improvement in pain. Average VAS scores decreased from 7.44 to 2.28 (p < 0.001) in those patients who responded to reprogramming. The average stimulation parameters in these patients were 5 V amplitude (range 1.7-10), 313 mus pulse width (range 240-390) and frequency of 84 Hz (range 55-130). Three patients experienced seizures during reprogramming. The mean seizure threshold was 8.9 V. No patient experienced seizures at their therapeutic settings. Pain control has been maintained after discharge. Conclusion: Intensive reprogramming can recapture the benefit of MCS in patients who have lost pain control. The use of broad dipoles using two contacts rather than one contact of the 1 x 4 electrode array improved the ability to recapture beneficial stimulation. There is a significant risk of seizures during aggressive reprogramming. Copyright (c) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.
PMID: 15583465 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
|