Search

Introduction: Despite the long-term use of intramuscular and intraosseous lidocaine trigger point injections (LTPI) in the treatment of patients with low back pain, there have been no studies examining their efficiency in treatment of residual pain after degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) decompression surgery. The purpose of our research is to examine the LTPI efficiency in the treatment of residual lumbar pain after DLSS decompression surgery and to compare the analgesic and recovery effects of intramuscular and intraosseous LTPI administered in the L4–S1 region and in the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) after treatment and during four months of follow-up. Materials and Methods: We observed 99 patients (F:50, M:49) aged 42 to 59 years with residual neurological disorders after DLSS decompression surgery. In all patients, the pain syndrome exceeded 6 points on the VAS and averaged 7.2 ± 0.11 points. The control group (n = 21) underwent only pharmacotherapy. In addition to pharmacotherapy, the LTPI group underwent intramuscular LTPI in L4–S1 (n = 20), intramuscular LTPI in the PSIS (n = 19), intraosseous LTPI in L5, S1 (n = 20), and intraosseous LTPI in the PSIS (n = 19). A neurological examination was carried out before treatment, 7 days after completion of treatment, and at the end of the second and fourth months of the follow-up period. Results: In the control group, intramuscular LTPI in L4–S1 subgroup, intramuscular LTPI in PSIS subgroup, intraosseous LTPI in L5, S1 subgroup, and intraosseous LTPI in PSIS subgroup, the severity of pain decreased after treatment by 27.1% (p ≤ 0.05), 41.7% (p ≤ 0.01), 50.7% (p ≤ 0.01), 69% (p ≤ 0.01), and 84.7% (p ≤ 0.01), respectively, and at the end of the second month of follow-up, by 14.3% (p > 1), 29.2% (p ≤ 0.05), 38% (p ≤ 0.01), 53.5% (p ≤ 0.01), and 72.2% (p ≤ 0.01), respectively. Reduction of neurogenic claudication, regression of sensory deficit, increase of daily step activity, and improvement of quality of life after treatment were noted in intramuscular LTPI subgroups by 19.6% (p ≤ 0.05), 36.4 (p ≤ 0.05), 40.3% (p ≤ 0.01), and 21.0% (p ≤ 0.05), respectively, and in interosseous LTPI subgroups by 48.6% (p ≤ 0.01), 67.4% (p ≤ 0.01), 68.3% (p ≤ 0.01), and 46% (p ≤ 0.01), respectively. Conclusions: LTPI is highly effective in the treatment of patients with residual pain after DLSS decompression surgery. High analgesic effect, significant regression of sensory deficits and gait disorders, and remarkable improvement of daily step activity and quality of life are noted not only after the end of LTPI treatment but also continue for at least 2 months after treatment. Intraosseous LTPI is more effective than intramuscular LTPI by 92%, and LTPI in PSIS is more effective than LTPI in L4–S1 by 28.6%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is a common cause of low back pain and most spinal disorders. As IVD degeneration is a major obstacle to the healthy life of so many individuals, it is a major issue that needs to be overcome. Currently, there is no clinical treatment for the regeneration of degenerated IVDs. However, recent advances in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering suggest the potential of cell-based and/or biomaterial-based IVD regeneration therapies. These treatments may be indicated for patients with IVDs in the intermediate degenerative stage, a point where the number of viable cells decreases, and the structural integrity of the disc begins to collapse. However, there are many biological, biomechanical, and clinical challenges that must be overcome before the clinical application of these IVD regeneration therapies can be realized. This review summarizes the basic research and clinical trials literature on cell-based and biomaterial-based IVD regenerative therapies and outlines the important role of these strategies in regenerative treatment for IVD degenerative diseases, especially disc herniation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Damage to the annulus fibrosus (AF), the outer region of the intervertebral disc (IVD), results in an undesirable condition that may accelerate IVD degeneration causing low back pain. Despite intense research interest, attempts to regenerate the IVD have failed so far and no effective strategy has translated into a successful clinical outcome. Of particular significance, the failure of strategies to repair the AF has been a major drawback in the regeneration of IVD and nucleus replacement. It is unlikely to secure regenerative mediators (cells, genes, and biomolecules) and artificial nucleus materials after injection with an unsealed AF, as IVD is exposed to significant load and large deformation during daily activities. The AF defects strongly change the mechanical properties of the IVD and activate catabolic routes that are responsible for accelerating IVD degeneration. Therefore, there is a strong need to develop effective therapeutic strategies to prevent or reconstruct AF damage to support operational IVD regenerative strategies and nucleus replacement. By the way of this review, repair and regenerative strategies for AF reconstruction, their current status, challenges ahead, and future outlooks were discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low back pain (LBP), commonly induced by intervertebral disc degeneration, is a lumbar disease with worldwide prevalence. However, the mechanism of degeneration remains unclear. The intervertebral disc is a nonvascular organ consisting of three components: Nucleus pulposus, annulus fibrosus, and endplate cartilages. The disc is structured to support our body motion and endure persistent external mechanical pressure. Thus, there is a close connection between force and intervertebral discs in LBP. It is well established that with aging, disordered mechanical stress profoundly influences the fate of nucleus pulposus and the alignment of collagen fibers in the annulus fibrosus. These support a new understanding that disordered mechanical stress plays an important role in the degeneration of the intervertebral discs. Tissue-engineered regenerative and reparative therapies are being developed for relieving disc degeneration and symptoms of lower back pain. In this paper, we will review the current literature available on the role of disordered mechanical stress in intervertebral disc degeneration, and evaluate the existing tissue engineering treatment strategies of the current therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]