Objective To investigate the clinical significance of applicating posterior internal fixation for regulating spinal curvature in thoracolumbar compression fractures. Methods Between May 2006 and May 2009, 63 patients with thoracolumbar compression fractures were treated, and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 33 patients received traditional posterior internal fixation in control group; 30 patients underwent posterior internal fixation with spinal curvature correction under C-arm X-ray device in trial group. There was no significant difference in age, gender, cause of injury, injured segment, grade of fracture, and time from injury to operation between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The Cobb angle, height of injured vertebral body, and disc height were measured by X-ray examination; loosening and breakage of internal fixation were observed and compared between 2 groups. The recovery rate was calculated according to pre- and post-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores for each patient. Results All cases were followed up 20-45 months (mean, 31 months). The postoperative VAS score, ODI, Cobb angle, height of injured vertebral body, and disc height were improved significantly when compared with preoperative values in 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). At last follow-up, VAS and ODI scores of trial group were significantly better than those of control group (P lt; 0.05); loss of Cobb angle was (2.1 ± 1.7)° in trial group and (4.2 ± 3.2)° in control group, showing significant difference (t=1.457, P=0.000); loss of disc height was (1.4 ± 1.2) mm in trial group and (3.4 ± 2.3) mm in control group, showing significant difference (t=9.336, P= 0.000); loss of height of injured vertebral body was 1.8% ± 0.6% in trial group and 5.4% ± 2.1% in control group, showing significant difference (t=3.435, P=0.000). Broken screw and loosening screw occurred in 1 case of control group, respectively (6.1%), but no broken or loosening screw in trial group, showing significant difference (P=0.000). Conclusion Application of posterior internal fixation for regulating spinal curvature has a good clinical effectiveness. The postoperative spinal curvature, the height of injured vertebral body, and disc height can be improved significantly and low back pain can be recovered satisfactorily. The modified technique is also effective in reducing broken and loosening incidence of the fixation system.
ObjectiveTo compare postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCIA) on maternal low back pain after caesarean section. MethodsSixty cases of American Society of Anesthesiology gradeⅠ-Ⅱ single-birth full-term elective caesarean delivery primiparae chosen between July to September 2012 were divided into 3 groups randomly, 20 in each group. Group A accepted sufentanil 1 μg/mL and ropivacaine 1 mg/mL PCEA; group B had sufentanil 1.5 μg/mL PCEA; group C was given sufentanil 1.5 μg/mL and ondansetron 0.16 mg/mL PCIA. Background dose was 2 mL/h, patient-controlled analgesia dose was 2 mL, and locking time was 20 min. Visual analogue pain score was used to assess the effect of postoperative analgesia, and we recorded analgesia pump usage, adverse reactions, and at the same time investigated the onset of maternal low back pain. ResultsNo obvious postoperative pain was found, and the analgesic effect was good in all the three groups, and the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). All three groups of women had a certain proportion of low back pain, and the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). After operation, group A had 5 cases of leg numbness, group B had 1, and group C had none. Leg numbness occurred significantly more in group A than in group B and C (P<0.05). Group B had one case of nausea and vomiting, while none occurred in group A and C (P>0.05). ConclusionWith the same effect of postoperative analgesia, compared with PCIA, PCEA does not increase postoperative low back pain incidence after caesarean section.
ObjectiveTo investigate the therapeutic effect of glucosamine hydrochloride on chronic lumbago and backache. MethodsWe selected 328 outpatients with chronic lumbago and backache diagnosed between May 2014 and May 2015, and randomly (with single blind method) divided them into study group (n=172) and control group (n=156). Patients in the control group were treated with ibuprofen and placebo, while those in the study group were treated with ibuprofen and glucosamine hydrochloride. The short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ) was used for investigation at three time points (before the treatment, one month and two months after the treatment). ResultsThe score of SF-MPQ in the study group was 64.34±23.35 before the treatment, 44.04±13.22 one month after the treatment, and 19.87±8.11 two months after the treatment. While in the control group, the results at those three time points were 65.19±24.12, 47.04±11.36, and 54.44±21.39, respectively. There was no obvious difference between the two groups one month after the treatment (P>0.05). The pain was alleviated in both of the two groups one month after the treatment, while the therapeutic effect in the study group was significantly better than that in the control group two months after the treatment (P<0.05). Archenteric complications were found in 3 patients (1.74%) in the study group and 2 (1.28%) in the control group without a significant difference (P>0.05). ConclusionGlucosamine hydrochloride may effectively alleviate the lumbago and backache without any obvious adverse reactions.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect SRs/MAs of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain from inception to January 30th, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs. ResultsA total of 21 SRs/MAs were included. Twenty of them assessed the methodological quality of included original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different tools:2 used Jadad scale, 5 used PEDro scale, 6 used Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and 7 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:among 11 items, the item 1 of "Was an ‘a priori’ design provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) and item 4 of "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) appeared to be the most problematic, followed by item 10 of "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed" (14 SRs/MAs did not assess the publication bias) and item 11 of "Was the conflict of interest stated" (14 SRs/MAs did not provide the conflict of interest and 4 were incomplete). ConclusionThe methodological quality of included SRs/MAs is poor. The limited evidence showed that spinal manipulation is more effective for acute low back pain than chronic low back pain, and the short term effect is better than the long term one. Different spinal manipulation techniques have various effects but are all safe. Chiropractic manipulation may have the best effect. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of included SRs/MAs, there may be potential bias in the above conclusion that needs more high quality studies to verify.