Search

Abstract Background “Kratom” commonly refers to the botanical Mitragyna speciosa, native to Southeast Asia, which is increasingly used globally for its unique pharmacological effects. Motives for using the whole plant material or kratom-derived products include self-management of pain, mental health disorders, symptoms related to substance use disorders, and/or to increase energy. In the United States, kratom products have varying alkaloid content, potencies, and marketing profiles. There is little regulatory oversight over kratom, as it is currently not approved as a dietary supplement by the Food and Drug Administration. This results in substantial variability in labeling of kratom products and the product information provided to consumers. Methods In January 2023, we evaluated the American Kratom Association’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) qualified vendors’ websites (n = 42) using the well-established and validated DISCERN instrument to examine the quality of health information provided to consumers. DISCERN contains 15 five-point Likert-scale questions on specific criteria, with the highest possible score being 75, indicating that all the DISCERN criteria have been fulfilled by the website (i.e., the highest quality information is provided to consumers). Results The mean DISCERN score for all evaluated online kratom vendors was 32.72 (SD = 6.69; score range 18.00–43.76). Overall, vendors scored higher on DISCERN questions assessing the website’s reliability, as vendors typically provided clear information for consumers about product availability, purchasing, shipping, etc. On average, vendors scored poorly on the DISCERN section pertaining to the quality of the health information provided. Information on kratom’s potential risks and benefits was particularly insufficient. Conclusions Consumers require high quality information in order to make informed decisions concerning use, which entails disclosure of known risks and potential benefits. The online kratom vendors evaluated in this study should consider enhancing the quality of health information provided, especially information regarding kratom’s risks and benefits. Further, consumers should be made aware of current knowledge gaps related to kratom’s effects. Clinicians must also be aware of the lack of evidence-based information available to their patients who use kratom or are interested in using kratom products, in order to facilitate educational discussions with them.

Abstract Background Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is an important tool in preoperative evaluation of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Reported reliability of various MRI findings in LSS varies from fair to excellent. There are inconsistencies in the evaluated parameters and the methodology of the studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the preoperative MRI findings in patients with LSS between musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopaedic spine surgeons, using established evaluation methods and imaging data from a prospective trial. Methods Consecutive lumbar MRI examinations of candidates for surgical treatment of LSS from the Norwegian Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (NORDSTEN) study were independently evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists and two orthopaedic spine surgeons. The observers had a range of experience between six and 13 years and rated five categorical parameters (foraminal and central canal stenosis, facet joint osteoarthritis, redundant nerve roots and intraspinal synovial cysts) and one continuous parameter (dural sac cross-sectional area). All parameters were re-rated after 6 weeks by all the observers. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed by Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1) for categorical parameters and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the dural sac cross-sectional area. Results MRI examinations of 102 patients (mean age 66 ± 8 years, 53 men) were evaluated. The overall interobserver agreement was substantial or almost perfect for all categorical parameters (AC1 range 0.67 to 0.98), except for facet joint osteoarthritis, where the agreement was moderate (AC1 0.39). For the dural sac cross-sectional area, the overall interobserver agreement was good or excellent (ICC range 0.86 to 0.96). The intraobserver agreement was substantial or almost perfect/ excellent for all parameters (AC1 range 0.63 to 1.0 and ICC range 0.93 to 1.0). Conclusions There is high inter- and intraobserver agreement between radiologists and spine surgeons for preoperative MRI findings of LSS. However, the interobserver agreement is not optimal for evaluation of facet joint osteoarthritis. Trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02007083 , registered December 2013.

Abstract Background Spinal stenosis is a clinical diagnosis in which the main symptom is pain radiating to the lower extremities, or neurogenic claudication. Radiological spinal stenosis is commonly observed in the population and it is debated whether patients with no lower extremity pain should be labelled as having spinal stenosis. However, these patients is found in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery, the main object of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes after decompressive surgery in patients with insignificant lower extremity pain, with those with more severe pain. Methods This study is based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients who had decompressive surgery in the period from 7/1–2007 to 11/3–2013 at 31 hospitals were included. The patients was divided into four groups based on preoperative Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-score for lower extremity pain. Patients in group 1 had insignificant pain, group 2 had mild or moderate pain, group 3 severe pain and group 4 extremely severe pain. The primary outcome was change in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Successfully treated patients were defined as patients reporting at least 30% reduction of baseline ODI, and the number of successfully treated patients in each group were recorded. Results In total, 3181 patients were eligible; 154 patients in group 1; 753 in group 2; 1766 in group 3; and 528 in group 4. Group 1 had significantly less improvement from baseline in all the clinical scores 12 months after surgery compared to the other groups. However, with a mean reduction of 8 ODI points and 56% of patients showing a reduction of at least 30% in their ODI score, the proportion of patients defined as successfully treated in group 1, was not significantly different from that of other groups. Conclusion This national register study shows that patients with insignificant lower extremity pain had less improvement in primary and secondary outcome parameters from baseline to follow-up compared to patients with more severe lower extremity pain.

Abstract Background Fusion in addition to decompression has become the standard treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The evidence for performing fusion among these patients is conflicting and there is a need for further investigation through studies of high quality. The present protocol describes an ongoing study with the primary aim of comparing the outcome between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion. The secondary aim is to investigate whether predictors can be used to choose the best treatment for an individual. The trial, named the NORDSTEN-DS trial, is one of three studies in the Norwegian Degenerative Spinal Stenosis (NORDSTEN) study. Methods The NORDSTEN-DS trial is a block-randomized, controlled, multicenter, non-inferiority study with two parallel groups. The surgeons at the 15 participating hospitals decide whether a patient is eligible or not according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participating patients are randomized to either a midline preserving decompression or a decompression followed by an instrumental fusion. Primary endpoint is the percentage of patients with an improvement in Oswestry Disability Index version 2.0 of more than 30% from baseline to 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measurements are the Zürich Claudication Questionnaire, Numeric Rating Scale for back and leg pain, Euroqol 5 dimensions questionnaire, Global perceived effect scale, complications and several radiological parameters. Analysis and interpretation of results will also be conducted after 5 and 10 years. Conclusion The NORDSTEN/DS trial has the potential to provide Level 1 evidence of whether decompression alone should be advocated as the preferred method or not. Further on the study will investigate whether predictors exist and if they can be used to make the appropriate choice for surgical treatment for this patient group. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02051374. First Posted: January 31, 2014. Last Update Posted: February 14, 2018.