BACKGROUND: The efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic pain studies is traditionally assessed by pain scores, which do not reflect the multidimensional nature of pain perception. Despite the evidence of SCS\'s influence on emotional functioning comprehensive assessments of its effect remain lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in emotional and psychosocial functioning in patients who underwent SCS implantation for chronic pain.
METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL and Scopus databases were searched for original peer-reviewed publications reporting emotional functioning after SCS. The primary outcomes were a pooled mean difference (MD) in anxiety, depression, global functioning, mental well-being and pain catastrophizing at 12 months. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the quality of evidence.
RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included in the primary analysis. Statistically significant improvements were observed in anxiety (MD -2.16; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.49; p<0.001), depression (MD -4.66; 95% CI -6.26 to -3.06; p<0.001), global functioning (MD 20.30; 95% CI 14.69 to 25.90; p<0.001), mental well-being (MD 4.95; 95% CI 3.60 to 6.31; p<0.001), and pain catastrophizing (MD -12.09; 95% CI -14.94 to -9.23; p<0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed differences in Global Assessment of Functioning and mental well-being based on study design and in depression based on waveform paradigm.
CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the statistically and clinically significant improvements in emotional and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic pain undergoing SCS therapy. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution due to the very low certainty of evidence per the GRADE criteria.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023446326.

OBJECTIVE: To explore if there are differences in the design and/or conduct of studies that have tested the STarTBack treatment approach for the management of low back pain (LBP), potentially explaining differences in study results.
METHODS: A literature review.
METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to 26 July 2023.
METHODS: We included studies that included (1) participants with LBP and/or leg pain, (2) randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series designs, (3) used the STarTBack Tool to stratify participants into subgroups and (4) studies provided matched treatments according to participants STarTBack score.
METHODS: Two review authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data into the data extraction form. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, results are presented descriptively.
RESULTS: 11 studies conducted across 5 countries were included. There were substantial differences in the proportion of participants allocated to the different risk groups; low-risk group (range: 19%-58%), medium risk group (range: 31%-52%) and high-risk group (range: 6%-38%). There were large differences between studies in the implementation of the STarTBack approach. The original STarTBack trial (Hill et al, 2011) had a more explanatory design while in many subsequent studies, the design was more pragmatic/real world. Only the two original studies provided clear evidence that the implementation of the STarTBack tool led to a higher proportion of participants receiving matched treatment. In the other studies, there was no evidence of a difference, or it was unclear. In two studies, a researcher made the decision about which matched treatment participants received based on the STartTback Tool, while in nine studies, this was done by a clinician. Most studies recommended the same matched treatment for each risk group as per the original study except for a small number of studies. Only three studies reported whether the clinician delivering matched treatment followed the recommended treatment as per the tool. There was substantial variability in the training clinicians received.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of important study-level factors (eg, differences in study design, whether clinicians were trained and how the tool was used in each study) in how the STarTBack approach was implemented was unclear. There is some suggestion that key factors may include the individual who implemented the STarTBack tool, whether the recommendations of the tool were followed, the amount of training the clinician delivering the matched treatment received, and whether clinicians actually delivered the matched treatment.

Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain predominate as the primary causes of disability. Cell- and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) products are potential therapies with clinical trials and reviews promoting their efficacy. Nonetheless, they frequently disregard the clinical significance of reported improvements. In this systematic review, the effectuated improvements in pain, disability, quality of life (QoL), and radiographic images are comprehensively described and scored on their clinical significance. An electronic database literature search was conducted on July 2023 for in-human assessment of cell or PRP products to alleviate discogenic pain. Papers were screened on quantitative pain, disability, QoL, radiographic improvements, and safety outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed through MINORS and Cochrane Source of Bias tools. Reported outcomes were obtained, calculated, and assessed to meet minimal clinically important difference (MCID) standards. From 7623 screened papers, a total of 80 articles met the eligibility criteria, presenting 68 specific studies. These presented at least 1974 treated patients. Overall, cell/PRP injections could alleviate pain and disability, resulting in MCID for pain and disability in up to a 2-year follow-up, similar to those observed in patients undergoing spinal fusion. Included trials predominantly presented high levels of bias, involved heterogeneous study designs, and only a minimal number of randomized controlled trials. Nonetheless, a clear clinically significant impact was observed for cell- and PRP-treated cohorts with overall good safety profiles. These results highlight a strong therapeutic potential but also underline the need for future cost-effectiveness assessments to determine the benefits of cell/PRP treatments.

BACKGROUND: A majority of employees in the industrial world spend most of their working time in a seated position. Monitoring sitting postures can provide insights into the underlying causes of occupational discomforts such as low back pain.
OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on the technologies and algorithms used to classify sitting postures on a chair with respect to spine and limb movements, using sensors and wearables such as inertial measurement units, pressure or piezoresistive sensors, accelerometers or gyroscopes, combined with machine learning approaches.
METHODS: A total of three electronic literature databases were surveyed to identify studies classifying sitting postures in adults. Quality appraisal was performed to extract critical details and assess biases in the shortlisted papers.
RESULTS: A total of 14 papers were shortlisted from 952 papers obtained after a systematic search. The majority of the studies used pressure sensors to measure sitting postures, whereas neural networks were the most frequently used approaches for classification tasks in this context. Only 2 studies were performed in a free-living environment. Most studies presented ethical and methodological shortcomings. Moreover, the findings indicate that the strategic placement of sensors can lead to better performance and lower costs.
CONCLUSIONS: The included studies differed in various aspects of design and analysis. The majority of studies were rated as medium quality according to our assessment. Our study suggests that future work for posture classification can benefit from using inertial measurement unit sensors, since they make it possible to differentiate among spine movements and similar postures, considering transitional movements between postures, and using three-dimensional cameras to annotate the data for ground truth. Finally, comparing such studies is challenging, as there are no standard definitions of sitting postures that could be used for classification. In addition, this study identifies five basic sitting postures along with different combinations of limb and spine movements to help guide future research efforts.

Spinal cord compression is a neurosurgical emergency. Symptoms of this disorder are highlighted as back pain, ambulatory difficulties, and bladder/bowel incontinence. Diagnostic imaging is not indicated in many circumstances of nonspecific back pain; however, the addition of neurologic deficits in the setting of back pain justifies radiologic imaging. Various pathologies can cause constriction of the spinal cord due to the delicate nature of spinal cord anatomy. Etiologies may include trauma, neoplasms, and infections. In this report, we present an unusual case of a 31-year-old male who presented to the emergency department with a history of chronic back pain accompanied by neurological deficits, ataxia, and bladder dysfunction. Contrast-enhanced MRI imaging heightened the suspicion of a neoplastic etiology; however, neuropathology revealed a non-neoplastic nature with abnormal lymphohistiocytic infiltrate suspicious for Langerhans cell histiocytosis or infectious etiology. A second opinion was provided by Mayo Clinic Laboratories, resulting in the definitive conclusion that the mass was non-neoplastic and tested negative for SD1a and Langerhin, biomarkers used to diagnose Langerhans cell histiocytosis. This unusual non-neoplastic lesion exemplifies one of many diverse and multifaceted pathologies that can precipitate spinal cord compression. Additionally, these findings underscore the importance of considering both neoplastic and non-neoplastic causes in the differential diagnosis of spinal cord compression, thereby enhancing clinical vigilance and improving patient outcomes for underlying spinal conditions.

Amid the worldwide increase in spinal surgery rates, a significant proportion of patients continue to experience refractory chronic pain, resulting in reduced quality of life and escalated healthcare demands. Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a clinical condition characterized by persistent or recurrent pain after one or more spinal surgeries. The diverse characteristics and stigmatizing descriptions of FBSS necessitate a reevaluation of its nomenclature to reflect its complexity more accurately. Accurate identification of the cause of FBSS is hampered by the complex nature of the syndrome and limitations of current diagnostic labels. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach that may include pharmacological treatment, physical therapy, psychological support, and interventional procedures, emphasizing realistic goal-setting and patient education. Further research is needed to increase our understanding, improve diagnostic accuracy, and develop more effective management strategies.

The aim of this study was to assess the moderator effect of the target concepts covered in the Pain science education (PSE) sessions, including both the total amount of target concepts and each individual target concept, on changes in pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic spinal pain (CSP). A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted from inception to March 10, 2024. A random effects model was used for meta-regression analysis. A total of 11 studies were included. The total amount of target concepts of PSE showed a significant correlation with changes in pain intensity (k=11; F=4.45; p=0.04; R2=26.07 %). In terms of each target content, only a significant effect on pain intensity was obtained for \'transfer knowledge about pain to an adaptive behavioural change\' (z=-2.35, P =0.019, 95 %CI -3.42 to -0.31) and \'reconceptualization of pain\' (z=-2.43, P =0.015, 95 %CI -3.70 to -0.39). No significant effect on disability was found. These results may be useful for optimising the effectiveness of PSE programmes.

OBJECTIVE: The present investigation evaluates clinical uses and roles of platelet rich plasma in the management of vetrebrogenic and discogenic mediated pain states.
RESULTS: Back pain is a common and significant condition that affects millions of people around the world. The cause of back pain is often complex and multifactorial, with discogenic and vertebrogenic pain being two subtypes of back pain. Currently, there are numerous methods and modalities in which back pain is managed and treated such as physical therapy, electrical nerve stimulation, pharmacotherapies, and platelet-rich plasma. To conduct this systematic review, the authors used the keywords \"platelet-rich plasma\", \"vertebrogenic pain\", and \"discogenic pain\", on PubMed, EuroPMC, Who ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov to better elucidate the role of this treatment method for combating vertebrogenic and discogenic back pain. In recent decades, there has been a rise in popularity of the use of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of numerous musculoskeletal conditions. Related to high concentration of platelets, growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines, platelet-rich plasma is effective in reducing pain related symptoms and in the treatment of back pain. Platelet-rich plasma use has evolved and gained popularity for pain related conditions, including vertebrogenic and discogenic back pain. Additional well-designed studies are warranted in the future to better determine best practice strategies to provide future clinicians with a solid foundation of evidence to make advancements with regenerative medical therapies such as platelet-rich plasma.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal posture (e.g. loss of lordosis) has been associated with the occurrence of musculoskeletal pain. Stretching tight muscles while strengthening the antagonists represents the most common method to treat the assumed muscle imbalance. However, despite its high popularity, there is no quantitative synthesis of the available evidence examining the effectiveness of the stretch-and-strengthen approach.
METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted, searching PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar. We included controlled clinical trials investigating the effects of stretching or strengthening on spinal and lumbopelvic posture (e.g., pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, head tilt) in healthy individuals. Effect sizes were pooled using robust variance estimation. To rate the certainty about the evidence, the GRADE approach was applied.
RESULTS: A total of 23 studies with 969 participants were identified. Neither acute (d = 0.01, p = 0.97) nor chronic stretching (d=-0.19, p = 0.16) had an impact on posture. Chronic strengthening was associated with large improvements (d=-0.83, p = 0.01), but no study examined acute effects. Strengthening was superior (d = 0.81, p = 0.004) to stretching. Sub-analyses found strengthening to be effective in the thoracic and cervical spine (d=-1.04, p = 0.005) but not in the lumbar and lumbopelvic region (d=-0.23, p = 0.25). Stretching was ineffective in all locations (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence does not support the use of stretching as a treatment of muscle imbalance. In contrast, therapists should focus on strengthening programs targeting weakened muscles.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an efficacious treatment for various refractory chronic pain syndromes. Serious complications including spinal cord compression (SCC) are rare with 19 previous reports which are mainly attributed to fibrotic scar tissue formation at the distal end of the leads at the location of the contacts. We report a case of SCC following SCS implantation at the lead entry location secondary to a delayed progression of spinal canal stenosis.
METHODS: A patient in her early 70s underwent SCS implantation with adequate therapeutic benefit for approximately 2 years before citing complaints of increasing lower back pain and lower extremity radicular pain. Lumbar spine X-rays excluded lead migration as a causative factor. An MRI of the lumbar spine obtained 30 months following SCS implantation demonstrated a marked interval progression of central canal stenosis secondary to facet and ligamentous hypertrophy manifesting in compression of the spinal cord at the lead entry location. An L1-L2 decompressive laminectomy with hardware removal resulted in the resolution of her symptoms. A literature search conducted with the PubMed database identified previously published cases of SCC following SCS implantation which highlighted the rarity of this complication.
CONCLUSIONS: Our case report urges physicians of SCS patients, noting a loss of therapeutic benefit with their device, to investigate new pathologies including SCC. Furthermore, our case highlights clinical symptoms and surgical treatments of SCC. Paddle leads are more commonly implicated in published cases of SCC than percutaneous leads. Lastly, MRI conditionality is critical to identifying cases of SCC.